Slashdot Mirror

Re: "Lol, you really don't seem to know how redshift works. The shift occurs in the spectral absorption and emission lines of interstellar gas (mostly Hydrogen). These have a specific fingerprint (i.e. a pattern of lines, like a barcode) that shifts to the red side of the spectrum. The quasar is just the light source that ionizes the gas in front of it, often hundreds of thousands light years away."

That's a simple narrative you've got there. Halton Arp was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He states in the theory section of his Intrinsic Redshift lecture:

"[I]f the electron mass - when it makes its transition in the atom, and emits the photon - if the mass is small, the photon is weak and it's redshifted. As the electron grows in mass, the photon which is emitted is stronger, and it drops in redshift."

Plasma physicist Eric Lerner has pointed out that if active galactic nuclei can be compared to plasma focus devices, then it is alternatively possible that quasars are being ejected electron-deficient. Arp was not a plasma physicist, and it seems unlikely that he was aware of Lerner's detailed argument.

Wal Thornhill appears to have built his own inference on top of Lerner's plasma physics approach:

"Quasars appear to be ejected, deficient in electrons, from their parent active galactic nucleus (AGN). The lightweight electrons remain tangled in the AGN plasmoid for much longer than the heavier protons and uncharged neutrons. As a result, the quasar has lower initial charge polarization compared to matter on Earth and, from the principle of E-MOND, all subatomic particles in the quasar have lower masses. Therefore, the emitting atoms also have lower masses, and their radiation has lower energy. The result is the observed intrinsic redshift of atomic emissions from quasars and their relative faintness."

What you are doing is pointing to the textbook theory, and saying "See?!" What these guys are pointing out is that there are alternative ways to explain what we see. They are working at the level of scientific frameworks, formulating new ways to interpret the data. This is a level of thinking above what you yourself are doing. Nobody is confused here about what the textbook says. Higher-level reasoning simply looks like confusion from the outside.

Arp is arguing that there is an inherent redshift component to the total. Quasars appear to start, at the moment of ejection, at something like z = 2 - 4. So, it would not necessarily be a disproof to not see blue-shifted objects since the doppler effect component to redshift would add to that inherent value to produce the total. There is something about new matter that makes it redshifted at birth (and people should be allowed to disagree, for now, about what that actually is).

Then, over time, the redshift equalizes w the surrounding environment. Apparently, this can in some cases happen very quickly - a fact which Arp does not directly address, but which can be better understood if the objects are not actually at their inferred distances. Even with that distance correction, there may still be more theory required to explain the unexpectedly quick rate at which quasars can apparently "shut off". I provide Wal Thornhill's explanation in order to illustrate that point:

"Like the atom itself, the constituents of each atom—the protons, neutrons and electrons—can be viewed as resonant systems of charge, capable of exchanging electromagnetic energy for quantum jumps between stable resonant states. The quantum jumps over time to lower redshift values occur as electrons from the parent galaxy’s jet arrive at the quasar and increase the quasars’ charge polarization. As its mass increases, according to E-MOND, the quasar slows from its high ejection speed at ‘birth,’ due to conservation of momentum. When the intrinsic redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back toward its parent, while continuing to decrease in redshift. Eventually it becomes a companion galaxy. Arp has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Many can be traced to three and four generations of ejecting objects."

Re: "Are you truly suggesting that we shouldn't have banned CFCs because of... solar cycles?"

Please observe this image detailing the structure of the electrical currents which travel in and out of the Earth's poles. There is a lot of complexity to the Earth's magnetosphere, and the poles are where all of this electrical plasma activity interacts with the Earth.

Nobody should be pretending that they know what should be happening in these regions at this point. It's too early even today for all of that posturing; it was even more so back in the 80's.

Re: "Uh, the vast majority of models I've seen are at least resistive, and often gyrokinetic or flat out kinetic instead of fluid. PIC is really popular for astrophysical plasmas, and a lot of the work on relativistic plasmas can't be fluid model at all."

There's an overt disconnect between what you are saying and the relentless onslaught of fluids concepts that appears within the analysis of astronomical plasmas. Whether or not the models in use are technically referred to as "fluids models", what is happening with them is that the plasmas are being modeled as fluids, without reference to electrodynamic plasma concepts observed within the laboratory.

There are by now numerous laboratory plasma physics concepts which generally don't appear in astrophysics papers -- including double layers, plasma instabilities (aka Peratt intabilities), z-pinches, critical ionization velocities, Marklund convection, and of course the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current.

Let's take an example from just this week. If you go to the original paper, it states:

Using numerical radiation hydrodynamical models, we show that the light curve of KSN 2015K is well fitted by a model where the supernova runs into external material presumably expelled in a pre-supernova mass-loss episode.

But, anybody who has spent time working with electrodynamic plasmas in the plasma laboratory should already be very familiar with the ring of vortices morphology, because this exact type of filamentation is what happens for the highest charge-density state of a conducting plasma, known as the z-pinch. In fact, plasma physicists have been imprinting electron beams onto a variety of materials for many decades now, producing this same form in the laboratory.

When people point out the obvious problem of failing to mention the correspondence between the astronomical and laboratory forms, people who honestly should know better tend to totally lose it, and it honestly creates a very anti-science situation where the exactly correct conversations are apparently out-of-bounds.

Personally, I believe that you understand where the disconnect is happening, and are just adopting a defensive posture. Why not be honest with us, and help us to better understand, in your own words, why objects like KSN 2015K and sn1987a cannot be considered the cosmic version of laboratory z-pinches? What physical features -- not just assumptions -- actually precludes such an analysis? An honest assessment would really help to advance the conversation.

Re: "Uh, the vast majority of models I've seen are at least resistive, and often gyrokinetic or flat out kinetic instead of fluid. PIC is really popular for astrophysical plasmas, and a lot of the work on relativistic plasmas can't be fluid model at all."

There's an overt disconnect between what you are saying and the relentless onslaught of fluids concepts that appears within the analysis of astronomical plasmas. Whether or not the models in use are technically referred to as "fluids models", what is happening with them is that the plasmas are being modeled as fluids, without reference to electrodynamic plasma concepts observed within the laboratory.

There are by now numerous laboratory plasma physics concepts which generally don't appear in astrophysics papers -- including double layers, plasma instabilities (aka Peratt intabilities), z-pinches, critical ionization velocities, Marklund convection, and of course the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current.

Let's take an example from just this week. If you go to the original paper, it states:

Using numerical radiation hydrodynamical models, we show that the light curve of KSN 2015K is well fitted by a model where the supernova runs into external material presumably expelled in a pre-supernova mass-loss episode.

But, anybody who has spent time working with electrodynamic plasmas in the plasma laboratory should already be very familiar with the ring of vortices morphology, because this exact type of filamentation is what happens for the highest charge-density state of a conducting plasma, known as the z-pinch. In fact, plasma physicists have been imprinting electron beams onto a variety of materials for many decades now, producing this same form in the laboratory.

When people point out the obvious problem of failing to mention the correspondence between the astronomical and laboratory forms, people who honestly should know better tend to totally lose it, and it honestly creates a very anti-science situation where the exactly correct conversations are apparently out-of-bounds.

Personally, I believe that you understand where the disconnect is happening, and are just adopting a defensive posture. Why not be honest with us, and help us to better understand, in your own words, why objects like KSN 2015K and sn1987a cannot be considered the cosmic version of laboratory z-pinches? What physical features -- not just assumptions -- actually precludes such an analysis? An honest assessment would really help to advance the conversation.

This is a photograph of one of those imprints made by a plasma filament. See the article for more information.

This is a photograph of one of those imprints made by a plasma filament. See the article for more information.

What I've observed over time are a lot of poorly-argued hit pieces which people who claim to believe in peer review immediately adopted as truth. In some cases -- as in the case of Professor Koberlein of RIT -- there have been some glaring errors in his analysis.

For example, this claim he made in that article (below) is completely false, and there is -- to this day -- no retraction observable in the article posted to his own personal blog:

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun.

Had he simply googled "electric universe neutrinos", the professor would have run into the EU explanation for solar neutrinos.

Koberlein recently published a redaction -- after four years of refusing to do so -- where he clumsily admitted that this claim is not entirely accurate.

It's interesting that people who claim to believe in peer review are so quick to accept critiques which have not been reviewed by anybody. It's also interesting that Koberlein does not go back and correct the original article, so anybody reading that -- to this day -- would have to sift through all of the comments attached to it in order to understand that a mistake was made. I'm betting that most people don't do that.

Re: "Where are the mathematical models?"

An excellent place to learn about the numerous scientific papers which relate to this subject is at Ian Tresman's site here.

However, learning the subject in this manner could be slightly confusing, as it can be difficult for people to learn new frameworks. Our tendency is to view the world through the lens of the theories we know. So, other sites have been constructed to help with this difficult process of switching frameworks. There are three sites which have been created for this purpose of facilitating the transition: here, here and here.

There have also been a couple of essential books published on these subjects: The Electric Sky offers a technical discussion for laypeople, whereas Anthony Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe can be used to understand some of the more technical details at a specialist science level. That said, it is also important to read Halton Arp's published work.

A couple of very good documentaries have also been created to try to convey these ideas -- like here and here.

Many of us who follow these matters also keep personal libraries of papers which relate to these subjects. These libraries involve literally thousands of scientific papers, but they are typically hidden behind paywalls. So, whatever point you think you are making, it would seem that what is really happening is that you've failed to even identify the sources where these models are discussed.

The reality of the situation is that you did not make it to first base, but this did not stop you from going online to criticize these ideas which you did not learn about.

The mistake of the mainstream approach has been to base the cosmic plasma models more upon what we imagine the plasma should do, based upon principles, than upon what we observe that the plasma does do within the laboratory. Since the Alfven story is not told in academia, the story which would teach this lesson remains completely unknown -- and so people continue to repeat the same mistaken logic. Put another way, when science journalists refuse to be objective, by refusing to tell the stories that mainstream scientists find awkward, there are real-world consequences for the public's conversations on these topics. It basically entraps the public into an ideology.

Re: "Gravity and the electric force both fall off with distance squared (other forces fall off faster)."

I see this sort of argument all of the time, and to be honest, it's evident that you've not learned enough of the debate to identify where the point of contention is. The idea that has been put forward is not based upon these simple principles; it's a hypothesis which has been constructed from modern observations of actual plasmas in actual laboratories. So, in that regard, we have a complete disconnect here: You've decided that you can argue against an argument which you've not taken the time to learn.

The actual argument which has been put forward is that, in the laboratory, what we observe plasmas doing is forming filaments which have a tendency to pair up. Take the time to learn the geometry of the claim by thinking about the pictures here, here and here -- which become progressively more complex.

It takes a little bit of mental effort to understand, but a person does not have to be a physicist or a mathematician to discern from these diagrams that there is a long-range attraction between these filaments, as well as a short-range repulsion.

Now, realize that plasmas are observed to scale over enormous distances. This is not based upon somebody imagining this as a principle (that would be absurd); the scaling is observed . So, what that means is that in a vague sense -- with some caveats -- we can scale this process up to the galactic regime. The observations of ESA's Herschel can fairly be called a vindication of this claim, as well.

One implication of this geometry is that the electric force can be extended to any distance we observe the filaments extending to. There is no known limit -- which is why this is a perfectly valid, and very physical, explanation for the dark matter problem.

Another important implication -- which is intriguing, honestly -- is that the universe appears to be a plasma fractal. There is repetition of structure happening across vastly different scales -- and this fact has not yet been adequately stated by science journalists to the public. It certainly bears great meaning for what the universe actually is.

Sure they do! Just thousands of them that you just can't see without some optical help.

Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.

Pardon me, but the ideology of deniers is based on trying to debate things they know nothing about.

Next, let's debate whether gravity exists or it is actually electric! Why isn't this revelation taught from the rooftops? Where is the balance in the discussion?

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/...

http://blackholeformulas.com/f...

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/...

PS. Yes, I'm sarcastic.

Once people have the courage to assume much of our science have to be rformulated, and that earthquakes have an electric cause - http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-earthquakes/

That is it - if you do believe in blackholes at all. Heretic as it seens, some people disagree blackholes even exist: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/

Crank site. The author is a Velikovsky fan.

That is it - if you do believe in blackholes at all. Heretic as it seens, some people disagree blackholes even exist: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/

Crank site. The author is a Velikovsky fan.

That is it - if you do believe in blackholes at all. Heretic as it seens, some people disagree blackholes even exist: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/black-holes-tear-logic-apart/

I appreciate the thougtful responses I always receive from you.

The world is not only a stranger place than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. It is some incredible arrogance to pretend that we can declare with absolute certainty that anything cannot be. The very best science we have is merely the truth as we know it so far. Science has repeatedly found that its ideas of "impossibility" sometimes turn out to be wrong. Sadly, this usually only happens when the old guard dies off because they refuse to change their minds.

It reminds me of the Electric Unvierse theorists. I find their site to be fascinating. It's updated every weekday and it's the sort of material that makes you think because it comes from a rational non-mainstream perspective. But just try mentioning it around here. People won't just tell you "I disagree with that theory" or "I think they're wrong". They'll tell you how much of a moron you must be, that you should go fuck yourself, that you probably go to witch doctors too, etc. That's how small-minded people deal with anything too far outside the comfortable worldviews their cowardice clings to.

The funny thing is, you don't normally see that level of vitriol and invective used agianst an idea unless there really is something to it. This is the only service the small-minded provide by being the way they are: they let you know when you're onto something.

Even if the Electric Universe theory turns out to be completely false, their critique of how modern astronomy is done is invaluable. It shows the ways that science isn't terribly different from the religious institutions it has come to replace. It still has an orthodoxy and you're still a sort of heretic if you deviate very much from it. You won't be allowed telescope time and your papers won't be published. One would think that open analyis and peer review would quickly reveal any falsehoods, but that is the position of secure people. What you actually see is a sort of irrational fear.

If you're up for it, you would probably appreciate this page and especially this one. Whether you agree with them or not, it will quickly become obvious to you that these are free thinkers. I love seeing that anywhere I find it.

Not to be confused with the Electric Universe Theory.

I've been around for a while and listened to Electric Universe proponents spout off about it for some time. I can assure you that, at one point, the party line in the posts I saw was that stars were basically just big iron-nickel anodes and cathodes in space surrounded by a relatively thin layer of plasma. Similarly, the trails behind comets weren't water reflecting sunlight, but were in fact an electrical aurora, etc., etc. Maybe such claims have been abandoned now, but they were there in the past. Electric Universe theory surely keeps changing just like most things. The only real constant seems to be that proponents insist that all other forces must bow to the electromagnetic force and that conventional physicists who don't subscribe to the theory are soulless minions of orthodoxy. Essentially, the entire point of EU theory seems to simply be contrarian.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of creationism. When I was a kid, dinosaur bones were just a few old bones that scientists had put together wrong and misinterpreted. When it became far too clear to everyone that only a complete idiot could really believe that, dinosaur bones because a trick planted by the devil. Today, dinosaurs are antediluvian life which didn't make it onto the ark... they're even mentioned in the bible!!! The creationists trail real science and keep changing their story, but never, ever, ever admit error. What they believe is always the absolute truth and always has been and if you remember having hours long arguments with them over something which they now believe to be the case but didn't then, your memory is faulty! The thing that's important to them isn't really any particular set of facts, it's that all those scientists with their fancy degrees aren't really so smart and are, in fact, actually stupid fools who can't see the truth, which is obvious to any of the superior (yet humble) believers.

Oh, gee. I am embarrassed to admit, I wrote the previous two paragraphs without reading the links you provided. Nothing but demagoguery and misrepresentation from me. I clearly never even your alternate theory a fighting chance. But, now I have read those pages and I am enlightened. In the spirit of enlightenment, I present an excerpt from this article which you linked to:

Stars formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is cool. There is no thermonuclear engine in stars!

Now, this is not exactly "big balls of iron" like I wrote (of course that was just what I'd heard from other EU proponents), but your response that "they claim they are balls of ionized plasma (i.e. gas-like, not solid-like)" after berating me for my idiocy seems a little disingenuous in light of what that article says. It seems to fit what I said a lot better than what you said. Solid core, lots of iron.

Fusion as a secondary effect of huge arc discharges doesn't seem like it would be sufficient to create all the higher elements in the universe given how ridiculously small the yield would be with plain hydrogen rather than tritium and deuterium like we do it on earth so, as far as I'm concerned, at present, the EU theory doesn't explain where all those elements came from. I'm sorry, I don't think that I'm drinking someone's poisoned kool-aid by finding EU theory to be flawed. I think I'm just looking at a heavily flawed theory and seeing it for what it is.

Remind me how the Electric Universe theory explains nucleosynthesis? If stars are actually just big balls of iron and nuclear fusion isn't powering them, where did the iron, and all of the other elements come from? Traditional cosmology explains it pretty well, and decades of observations of stars at all stages of development supports those explanations very well. How does the Electric Universe fit with all the existing evidence?

Eh what? Did you ever actually study this theory before deciding to comment on it? Of course not.

Two places to start: Holoscience and Thunderbolts.

Hint: they never claim stars are balls of iron. You deserve to feel like a moron for criticising something you do not understand. I doubt you have the objectivity and humility to admit fault here, though. You will probably take the coward's way out and assume I must be insulting you for no reason. Moving on...

They claim they are balls of ionized plasma (i.e. gas-like, not solid-like). Also, sufficiently powerful arc discharges can transmute elements. Also, EU theory doesn't say no fusion happens on a star. It says the star isn't powered by fusion. It would be more like the way we do fusion here on earth, by supplying energy (via laser beams typically) that causes the material to fuse. Just like here on earth, it isn't self-sustaining. It is powered by the energy of the sustained electric discharge.

This seems to be all that the EU haters bring to the table: demagoguery, misrepresentation, and straw men. Pathetic, even if unintended. It suggests you just heard something repeated a few times and ran with it and made no effort to validate what you believe. It's called drinking the kool-aid when people do this in the political arena.

If the above sounds harsh it's because I get tired of how misinformed and thick-headed many of you are. You are armchair critics who make no active effort to learn about something before deciding it must be total bullshit. Anyway, if you want to see the actual EU position on the Sun, please read this.

Remind me how the Electric Universe theory explains nucleosynthesis? If stars are actually just big balls of iron and nuclear fusion isn't powering them, where did the iron, and all of the other elements come from? Traditional cosmology explains it pretty well, and decades of observations of stars at all stages of development supports those explanations very well. How does the Electric Universe fit with all the existing evidence?

Eh what? Did you ever actually study this theory before deciding to comment on it? Of course not.

Two places to start: Holoscience and Thunderbolts.

Hint: they never claim stars are balls of iron. You deserve to feel like a moron for criticising something you do not understand. I doubt you have the objectivity and humility to admit fault here, though. You will probably take the coward's way out and assume I must be insulting you for no reason. Moving on...

They claim they are balls of ionized plasma (i.e. gas-like, not solid-like). Also, sufficiently powerful arc discharges can transmute elements. Also, EU theory doesn't say no fusion happens on a star. It says the star isn't powered by fusion. It would be more like the way we do fusion here on earth, by supplying energy (via laser beams typically) that causes the material to fuse. Just like here on earth, it isn't self-sustaining. It is powered by the energy of the sustained electric discharge.

This seems to be all that the EU haters bring to the table: demagoguery, misrepresentation, and straw men. Pathetic, even if unintended. It suggests you just heard something repeated a few times and ran with it and made no effort to validate what you believe. It's called drinking the kool-aid when people do this in the political arena.

If the above sounds harsh it's because I get tired of how misinformed and thick-headed many of you are. You are armchair critics who make no active effort to learn about something before deciding it must be total bullshit. Anyway, if you want to see the actual EU position on the Sun, please read this.

I'm probably butchering this but. They think the sun is a result of a massive voltage potential and it's power is controlled from the outside by electrostatics. This could make the radioactive decay not controlled by the sun but both controlled by the electrostatic field. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com

This is a really interesting read about an alternate theory on how the universe works by some EE types. Pretty neat stuff. http://www.holoscience.com/

At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:

• String theory is bunk. I know this because I heard someone call it "string theology" once and I thought that was clever.
• This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.
• Modern physics is bunk because nothing can move in spacetime. Visit my blog to learn the truth!
• Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but electricity. We have books, too!
• Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls! How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper?!?
• Modern science is bunk. These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible.
• YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!

There. That should save everyone some time.

a few advancements in ion propulsion or vacuum propellers,

Although the vacuum propeller has actually been patented, according to Wikipedia, it doesn't really exist. However, by following one of the external links, I get the impression it's right up there next to the Electric Universe in terms of generating useful information. That is, it's extraordinarily unlikely.

None of the technology to do this is very far-fetched at all, but we just aren't willing to spend the money.

Your hold on reality seems a tad weak. I'd strongly advise turning off the TV for a while and make sure you get outside on a regular basis.

Some of us have noticed this about cosmology for a long, long time now. Global warming is just a trendier issue so it gets noticed first, that's all.

“Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the ‘snowball effect’ or ‘groupthink’. We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.”
—Martin Lopez-Corredoira, astrophysicist.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=bqx15w21

Some of you more knee-jerk types would also benefit from this article because some of you use some really weak arguments.

Probably because your kooky theory does nothing to explain or predict dark matter or the cosmic microwave background

You're proving my point that the people who are so quick to call the EU bullshit are also not very familiar with it. When I explain why those two are completely false, I want you to be aware of your own hypocrisy and how much you shame yourself by speaking ill of what you know nothing about. If I were you, I'd have done that anonymously too. If you are like almost everyone else who does this, then you will ignore the fact that I have corrected you and will pretend that you didn't see my post. So be it. You'll see it, and I'll know that you saw it, and with that I am satisfied.

First of all, one of the major points of EU theory is that IT DOES NOT NEED DARK MATTER AT ALL. The difference between EU theory and mainstream theory is that mainstream theory is focused to the point of obsession on gravity and gravitational effects. Now, any physicist or electrical engineer can tell you that gravity is a very weak force, compared to any other. The electric force and electrical attraction/repulsion are many, many orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Also, gravity follows the inverse-square law, so it diminishes with the square of the distance - if you double your distance from a gravitational body, the gravity from it that you experience is four times less. Electricity, on the other hand, diminishes linearly - if you double your distance from an electric field, the electric field you experience is half. It's a much more powerful force and one that is more powerful over distances. Thus, the visible matter in the universe that we can see, the regular ordinary non-dark matter, is more than enough to account for what we see in space, with no "extra" source of gravity (dark matter) needed. I hope that now you can see why it's silly to say "but EU doesn't explain or predict dark matter!" and why that instantly told me that you don't have the first clue of what you're talking about. To an EU scientist, dark matter is a "fudge factor" like Ptolomy's epicycles, it was put there only because an equation did not work without it, it has never once been observed or created in a lab, and its presence in a mathematical equation does not give it physical reality. Study Ptolomy's epicycles and you will see how generations of otherwise good scientists can believe in the physical reality of a mathematical falsehood only because their equations couldn't work without that mathematical falsehood.

For the cosmic microwave background, the EU theory notes that the locations "hot spots" in data like that produed by COBE and WMAP correlate with known locations of filimentary structures of hydrogen. Those filiments are known as Birkeland currents and in fact we can observe the magnetism they produce, either in space at huge scales or in a lab at small scales. What any electrical engineer can tell you is that you need an electric current to account for those magnetic fields. An electric current on that scale is more than capable of producing microwave radiation and there are many, many such currents throughout interstellar space. This also explains why the WMAP data was a "smoother" distribution than was expected, a finding that I believe is what led to the ad-hoc after-the-fact invention of inflation theory. This of course is bad science; a good theory predicts observations in advance, a terrible and rather unscientific theory fails to predict and when the failure is noted, the theory is revised and forced to fit the observation instead of being discarded and replaced. If you don't understand that, I'd suggest studying the works of a scientist named Karl Popper and what he had to say about falsifiability.

Your first little objection was so trivial to explain that a layman like me has no problem doing so. For the second, you may be interested in this link, which I

I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it.

I'm guessing by your response that you believe their theory. Honestly, I had completely forgotten about them after Deep Impact because they were wrong about the outcome of the collision.

Even so, I'll see your link and raise you another: Electric sun

(Full disclosure: I believe in String Theory, even though it rarely makes predictions that can be proven in a lab. I also follow the Ekpyrotic universe model, which is almost as out there as the Electric Universe theory.)

I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.

To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.

To be completely fair, I haven't done due diligence with the Electric Universe model recently. I tried doing that once with the flat-Earthers to figure out how it all worked. After reading about 10,000 posts of back-and-forth I decided that sometimes the crazy theories really are crazy and not worth investigating. I read pro- and con- arguments for EU back before the Deep Impact mission and haven't looked at it since. I'm not really likely to have my mind changed now, but I'll browse their site(s) to see if they've made any new predictions.

The Electric Universe people were completely discredited when the NASA probe spawned from Deep Impact collided with the comet Tempel 1. If the Universe were -- as they claim -- made up of anti-matter, the resulting explosion of the probe and comet would have vaporized a fair chunk of the solar system.

Of course, this didn't stop them from saying that the collision actually proved their theory since there was a little explosion.

I believe you're proving my point for me when I say that the people who vehemently oppose the Electric Universe (EU) theory tend not to be familiar with it. I have read their works extensively and have never, ever seen the EU folks make the claim that the Universe is made up of antimatter. If you want to see what they had to say about the Deep Impact collison with Tempel 1, look here and you will find something entirely different from what you just described.

You can also find more on the Deep Impact event in this category of the Thunderbolts site.

To date, I have never once seen an opponent of the EU theory who was thoroughly familiar with it. There is no substitute for your own inquiry.

You know, first I thought that that whole 'big bang never happened' idea was ridiculous.

I have to admit that at that time I had not really looked into things. Then I stumbled upon the Electric Universe / Plasma Cosmology approach and I must say that I find it very intriguing:

Electric Universe Predictions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRrAswC4CYo

News:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php

Interview The Electric Universe Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iasEwhBHyyU

Interview The Electric Sky: Donald E. Scott Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRqNdpKxq_0

Perhaps it's time to give some more time to these ideas that were founded by people like Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-bio.html

The electrical character of dust devils and tornadoes is rarely mentioned. In fact, researchers only recently began to examine the electrical nature of dust devils in an effort to understand what is happening on Mars. Mysteries still surround electrical activity in our atmosphere. For example, the Earth has a vertical electric field, in the order of 100 volts per meter in dry air, whose origin is unknown. And scientists do not know what causes the most obvious electrical phenomenon in the atmosphere â"' lightning. See 'The Balloon goes up over lightning!' for a discussion of the Electric Universe model of lightning.

However, last week saw another success for the Electric Universe model. It's now official that dust devils on Earth exhibit strong electric fields, in excess of 4,000 volts per meter. They generate magnetic fields as well. The researchers who made the discovery added the qualification '"on Earth"' because the discovery was a surprise. They cannot be certain that it applies to the dust devils on Mars because their purely mechanical model did not predict the electrical effects found in earthly dust devils. However the tentative connection was made and resulted in the following artist''s impression of what an electrified Martian dust devil might look like.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zg70y10m

AFAIK, Electric Universe doesn't even have a *hypothesis* to explain the cosmic microwave anisotropy. Which was, by the way, a huge vindication for Big Bang theory, since it was predicted in advance.

Impossible to tell. Due to the image's low resolution I can't tell whether it's an a regular solar corona, a star sitting in a wispy gas cloud, a star sitting in a debris field, a star sitting behind a cloud/debris field, extremely large protuberances, giant lightning bolts... Heck, it could be a giant glowing amoeba.

That image looks like it was about 30x30 pixels before scaling. With that kind of resolution being able to tell that it's a star is about as far as we get.

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

There are huge implications. Here is an article which addresses just that. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest Another one dealing with mars. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm I thought the dust was supposed to make it colder. Wasn't that what killed the dinos? A huge meteor threw up tons of dust in the atmosphere causing an ice age. : )

Maybe you should choose to read actual science instead of those fucking non-science based speculation? Dear lord, what do you read, Metaresearch.com? haha..sorry, that was mean to imply you were that stupid.

But how can you measure the speed of gravity? One way would be to detect gravitational waves, little ripples in space-time that propagate out from accelerating masses. But no one has yet managed to do this.

Kopeikin found another way. He reworked the equations of general relativity to express the gravitational field of a moving body in terms of its mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. If you could measure the gravitational field of Jupiter, while knowing its mass and velocity, you could work out the speed of gravity.

Bending waves

The opportunity to do this arose in September 2002, when Jupiter passed in front of a quasar that emits bright radio waves. Fomalont and Kopeikin combined observations from a series of radio telescopes across the Earth to measure the apparent change in the quasar's position as the gravitational field of Jupiter bent the passing radio waves.

From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.

Maybe you should choose to read actual science instead of those fucking non-science based speculation? Dear lord, what do you read, Metaresearch.com? haha..sorry, that was mean to imply you were that stupid.

But how can you measure the speed of gravity? One way would be to detect gravitational waves, little ripples in space-time that propagate out from accelerating masses. But no one has yet managed to do this.

Kopeikin found another way. He reworked the equations of general relativity to express the gravitational field of a moving body in terms of its mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. If you could measure the gravitational field of Jupiter, while knowing its mass and velocity, you could work out the speed of gravity.

Bending waves

The opportunity to do this arose in September 2002, when Jupiter passed in front of a quasar that emits bright radio waves. Fomalont and Kopeikin combined observations from a series of radio telescopes across the Earth to measure the apparent change in the quasar's position as the gravitational field of Jupiter bent the passing radio waves.

From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.

Maybe you should choose to read actual science instead of those fucking non-science based speculation? Dear lord, what do you read, Metaresearch.com? haha..sorry, that was mean to imply you were that stupid.

But how can you measure the speed of gravity? One way would be to detect gravitational waves, little ripples in space-time that propagate out from accelerating masses. But no one has yet managed to do this.

Kopeikin found another way. He reworked the equations of general relativity to express the gravitational field of a moving body in terms of its mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. If you could measure the gravitational field of Jupiter, while knowing its mass and velocity, you could work out the speed of gravity.

Bending waves

The opportunity to do this arose in September 2002, when Jupiter passed in front of a quasar that emits bright radio waves. Fomalont and Kopeikin combined observations from a series of radio telescopes across the Earth to measure the apparent change in the quasar's position as the gravitational field of Jupiter bent the passing radio waves.

From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.

When any Big Bang type of theory is mentioned, I sometimes wonder why alternative theories, like the Electric Universe, are never mentioned, as though there is only one way to try to explain cosmological phenomenon. I would really like to see some experiments or at least some solid reasoning (instead of the usual approach, which is dismissal) to attempt to falsify some of the claims made here or here or here.

While I am not entirely certain that the Electric Universe has The Truth either (nor do I think it's a good idea to ever fully believe that this is the case), I too am tired of hearing about the "reality" of mathematical entities that have never been directly observed, and of the tendency to just insert dark matter wherever it's needed, after the fact (as opposed to predicting its presence and location by theory), when it is found that our currently understanding otherwise fails to describe the objects we are seeing. I do agree with Wal Thornhill that cosmology is beginning to resemble the Ptolemaic epicycles.

It's also a shame that (at least in the USA) the funding system has made science another self-reinforcing status quo just like the political system, in that no one who is willing to change things and try a totally different approach has any chance of receiving the funding and support that's necessary to get off the ground.

When any Big Bang type of theory is mentioned, I sometimes wonder why alternative theories, like the Electric Universe, are never mentioned, as though there is only one way to try to explain cosmological phenomenon. I would really like to see some experiments or at least some solid reasoning (instead of the usual approach, which is dismissal) to attempt to falsify some of the claims made here or here or here.

While I am not entirely certain that the Electric Universe has The Truth either (nor do I think it's a good idea to ever fully believe that this is the case), I too am tired of hearing about the "reality" of mathematical entities that have never been directly observed, and of the tendency to just insert dark matter wherever it's needed, after the fact (as opposed to predicting its presence and location by theory), when it is found that our currently understanding otherwise fails to describe the objects we are seeing. I do agree with Wal Thornhill that cosmology is beginning to resemble the Ptolemaic epicycles.

It's also a shame that (at least in the USA) the funding system has made science another self-reinforcing status quo just like the political system, in that no one who is willing to change things and try a totally different approach has any chance of receiving the funding and support that's necessary to get off the ground.

When any Big Bang type of theory is mentioned, I sometimes wonder why alternative theories, like the Electric Universe, are never mentioned, as though there is only one way to try to explain cosmological phenomenon. I would really like to see some experiments or at least some solid reasoning (instead of the usual approach, which is dismissal) to attempt to falsify some of the claims made here or here or here.

While I am not entirely certain that the Electric Universe has The Truth either (nor do I think it's a good idea to ever fully believe that this is the case), I too am tired of hearing about the "reality" of mathematical entities that have never been directly observed, and of the tendency to just insert dark matter wherever it's needed, after the fact (as opposed to predicting its presence and location by theory), when it is found that our currently understanding otherwise fails to describe the objects we are seeing. I do agree with Wal Thornhill that cosmology is beginning to resemble the Ptolemaic epicycles.

It's also a shame that (at least in the USA) the funding system has made science another self-reinforcing status quo just like the political system, in that no one who is willing to change things and try a totally different approach has any chance of receiving the funding and support that's necessary to get off the ground.

I have some more details about what will be found at the bottom of Victoria crater. It's technically called a fulgamite (not a fulgarite). Fulgamites are superficially glassified, whereas fulgarites are underground tubes of glassification.

The formations in Victoria crater (and in thousands of other craters and canyons) a glassified mounds of debris. In CJ Ransom's experiments where a plasma gun is shot at various types of soil, the charged probe gathers material from the area surrounding the dark mode release of electrical energy and shoots it into the air. The shallow crater that forms gradually grows larger as more and more material is sucked in to the center of the plasma vortex.

If the energy is high enough, the material will be swept into the center of the vortex and then re-deposited below the discharge zone, where the heat would tend to glassify the surface, leaving it partially solidified. That's why the formations on Mars don't move around in the "wind" -- they're covered with a crust of tiny ceramic beads that have been fused together.

These sand dunes will look very similar to those observed at Endurance Crater ...

Endurance Crater "Dune" Field

One interesting aspect to these "sand dunes" inside the craters on Mars is that they all -- without fail -- exhibit identical morphology, from the polygonal formations to the trailing tendrils that look like they rise right out of the ground, rather than resting on top of it. Not one NASA commentator has remarked on that fact, despite being presented with, literally, thousands of examples from orbit and from Spirit and Opportunity.

There is a similar structure in the Argyre Planitia crater -- a giant, glassified, polygonal mound with ribbon-like structures, frozen in place:

Argyre Planitia

Argyre Planitia is 900 kilometers in diameter.

Once NASA discovers that these formations are hard rather than soft, they will likely call them "pachydermal weathering". But, in the process of coming to this conclusion, they will completely ignore the fact we can also generate these structures in the laboratory using a plasma gun. My guess is that they will also likely gloss over the morphology of the glassified "dunes", which Wallace Thornhill discusses on his www.holoscience.com site towards the bottom of this page.

As I've stated before, if NASA wants to prove to itself that water activity is responsible for these structures, it might have some success. However, there is no doubt that they are demonstrating a preference for one interpretation over electrical interpretations as the electrical interpretation would undermine their contention that impact craters are the results of explosions resulting from physical collisions. To accept that electrical plasmas are involved would force them to accept that bodies in space can acquire and trade charge -- a fact which they should have learned from the Deep Impact mission, which Wallace Thornhill also accurately predicted in great detail.

I *love* the fact that astrophysical predictions are classified on Slashdot as "Troll". That's pretty interesting. It's a sign of the times that predictions no longer mean anything to mainstream astrophysical enthusiasts.

Anyways, I have some more details about what will be found at the bottom of Victoria crater. It's technically called a fulgamite (not a fulgarite). Fulgamites are superficially glassified, whereas fulgarites are underground tubes of glassification.

The formations in Victoria crater (and in thousands of other craters and canyons) a glassified mounds of debris. In CJ Ransom's experiments where a plasma gun is shot at various types of soil, the charged probe gathers material from the area surrounding the dark mode release of electrical energy and shoots it into the air. The shallow crater that forms gradually grows larger as more and more material is sucked in to the center of the plasma vortex.

If the energy is high enough, the material will be swept into the center of the vortex and then re-deposited below the discharge zone, where the heat would tend to glassify the surface, leaving it partially solidified. That's why the formations on Mars don't move around in the "wind" -- they're covered with a crust of tiny ceramic beads that have been fused together.

These sand dunes will look very similar to those observed at Endurance Crater ...

Endurance Crater "Dune" Field

One interesting aspect to these "sand dunes" inside the craters on Mars is that they all -- without fail -- exhibit identical morphology, from the polygonal formations to the trailing tendrils that look like they rise right out of the ground, rather than resting on top of it. Not one NASA commentator has remarked on that fact, despite being presented with, literally, thousands of examples from orbit and from Spirit and Opportunity.

There is a similar structure in the Argyre Planitia crater -- a giant, glassified, polygonal mound with ribbon-like structures, frozen in place:

Argyre Planitia

Argyre Planitia is 900 kilometers in diameter.

Once NASA discovers that these formations are hard rather than soft, they will likely call them "pachydermal weathering". But, in the process of coming to this conclusion, they will completely ignore the fact we can also generate these structures in the laboratory using a plasma gun. My guess is that they will also likely gloss over the morphology of the glassified "dunes", which Wallace Thornhill discusses on his www.holoscience.com site towards the bottom of this page.

As I've stated before, if NASA wants to prove to itself that water activity is responsible for these structures, it might have some success. However, there is no doubt that they are demonstrating a preference for one interpretation over electrical interpretations as the electrical interpretation would undermine their contention that impact craters are the results of explosions resulting from physical collisions. To accept that electrical plasmas are involved would force them to accept that bodies in space can acquire and trade charge -- a fact which they should have learned from the Deep Impact mission, which Wallace Thornhill also accurately predicted in great detail.

I have some more details about what will be found at the bottom of Victoria crater. It's technically called a fulgamite (not a fulgarite). Fulgamites are superficially glassified, whereas fulgarites are underground tubes of glassification.

The formations in Victoria crater (and in thousands of other craters and canyons) a glassified mounds of debris. In CJ Ransom's experiments where a plasma gun is shot at various types of soil, the charged probe gathers material from the area surrounding the dark mode release of electrical energy and shoots it into the air. The shallow crater that forms gradually grows larger as more and more material is sucked in to the center of the plasma vortex.

If the energy is high enough, the material will be swept into the center of the vortex and then re-deposited below the discharge zone, where the heat would tend to glassify the surface, leaving it partially solidified. That's why the formations on Mars don't move around in the "wind" -- they're covered with a crust of tiny ceramic beads that have been fused together.

These sand dunes will look very similar to those observed at Endurance Crater ...

Endurance Crater "Dune" Field

One interesting aspect to these "sand dunes" inside the craters on Mars is that they all -- without fail -- exhibit identical morphology, from the polygonal formations to the trailing tendrils that look like they rise right out of the ground, rather than resting on top of it. Not one NASA commentator has remarked on that fact, despite being presented with, literally, thousands of examples from orbit and from Spirit and Opportunity.

There is a similar structure in the Argyre Planitia crater -- a giant, glassified, polygonal mound with ribbon-like structures, frozen in place:

Argyre Planitia

Argyre Planitia is 900 kilometers in diameter.

Once NASA discovers that these formations are hard rather than soft, they will likely call them "pachydermal weathering". But, in the process of coming to this conclusion, they will completely ignore the fact we can also generate these structures in the laboratory using a plasma gun. My guess is that they will also likely gloss over the morphology of the glassified "dunes", which Wallace Thornhill discusses on his www.holoscience.com site towards the bottom of this page.

As I've stated before, if NASA wants to prove to itself that water activity is responsible for these structures, it might have some success. However, there is no doubt that they are demonstrating a preference for one interpretation over electrical interpretations as the electrical interpretation would undermine their contention that impact craters are the results of explosions resulting from physical collisions. To accept that electrical plasmas are involved would force them to accept that bodies in space can acquire and trade charge -- a fact which they should have learned from the Deep Impact mission, which Wallace Thornhill also accurately predicted in great detail.

I would suggest that the "sand dunes" are the result of the central arc spots, forming overlapping circular depressions (see diagram above). Certainly, the orthogonal ridges have more in common with a corona discharge pattern than they do with sand dunes. They may therefore be solid, glassified sand, rather like that found in dry soil following a lightning strike. Such glassified sand is known as a "fulgurite." It is noteworthy that the Apollo astronauts found clumps of glass-crusted soil near the centers of small (1 to 5 foot) craters on the lunar surface. It raised a stir because the glass was a surprise. In addition, orthogonal lineaments in the lunar soil were reported. They cannot have been there for long.

The blast effect of the cosmic "spark" together with the electrical stripping of ionized surface matter, produced the clean crater and surrounds. The sudden outward movement of the arc spots may have formed the radial pattern on the crater floor. The scalloped crater wall is simply the erosion signature of the irregular ring of enlarged anode spots.

The dark material on the crater floor may be from an exposed strata and/or the arc may have modified the lighter material. It may be rich in Martian hematite "blueberries." The somewhat curved dark streaks beyond the crater wall are to be expected from an electric discharge because of the rotating winds it generates.

I wish the Mars Rover, Opportunity, every success in exploring Victoria crater. It may at last be able to provide confirmation of the electrical model of planetary cratering. Of course, that does not guarantee acceptance by planetary scientists. That requires giving up strong beliefs imbibed with mother's milk.

this is no new news...

electric universe
http://www.holoscience.com/
or
Exploring the Electric Universe
http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm

Hey Dotsters! This is my first posting on slashdot, and on one of my fave subjects too! There are so many misconceptions surrounding black holes, and that's mainly because we rely too heavily ('cuse pun), on a 'gravity based' model to try and understand this f**ken amazing Universe we all find ourselves inhabiting, and we tend to exclude the electrical nature of the universe entirely. Electricity and its ever present magnetic fields have far more influence on the dynamics of the Universe than the feeble force of gravity, and until cosmologists realise this they will continue to make up absurd theories, (read fairytales), for things they don't understand. Here's something to keep in mind... When Isaac Newton was pondering his apple and sussing out his laws on gravity, he didn't have a juicer, or an ipod, or even a computer. Why not? No electricity stupid! In fact, he knew almost nothing about electromagnetic fields, plasmas, double layers, electrostatics etc, except that when you happened to rub amber and wool together, or when you were lucky enough to stroke a pussy with certain objects in the dark, sparks would fly! (pussy cat! Don't be so filthy:-). And so, here we are hundreds of years later still using these original gravity models, and not pausing to see where we may have gone wrong, or where we can improve on older theories by including our new knowledge of the electromagnetic forces and plasma fields that pervade all of space. This practice has led to some of the stupidest ideas in astrophysics including the concept of black holes and missing dark matter in our day and age. It seems to me our scientists were more on to it back in the mid to late 1800's with their ideas of an all pervading aether, except they just didn't understand its properties correctly. Anyway, for those interested in getting closer to the truth about this whole black hole biz, check this link out for another point of view. Cheers :-) Spaceguru. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=tyybhr r8

Using the spectrum of a star, not only can the densities of various ions and electrons be calculated, but also the relative abundances of the elements. It's unfortunate that you are unaware of an entire branch of science, but not unexpected. I'd also like to know why you think that a large current in space would z-pinch in only one central point along the length of the current rather than along the entire length.

Even if one were to accept the possibility of large currents forming the structures of nebulae, an X shape is not what one would expect.

Exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. It is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks (as distinct from hypothetical 'accretion' disks) and lends itself to empirical testing in the lab.

[...]

A number of double layers develop in series between a star and its galactic environment. Strong electric fields exist across them summing to the voltage difference between the star and the galactic plasma environment. Cosmic rays allow us to estimate the voltages of stars at tens of billions of volts. Ions and electrons are accelerated across the thin double layers and collide. The 'linear rungs or bars' of the Red Square fit Alfvén's circuit diagram as polar 'double layers,' symmetrically situated along the Z-pinch filaments, some distance from the star's two poles. Their thinness and electrical excitation results in the enhanced glow and sharp definition of the 'rungs or bars.'

Alfvén pioneered the stellar circuit concept and it seems his 'wiring diagram' is essentially correct but incomplete because it does not show the star's connection to the larger galactic circuit. Alfvén remarked, "The current closes at large distances, but we do not know where." Plasma cosmologists have supplied the answer by mapping the currents flowing along the arms of spiral galaxies. It is but a small step from there to see that all stars are the focus of Z-pinches within a galactic discharge. Normally the current flows in 'dark mode' so we don't usually see the spectacular bipolar 'wiring harnesses' of hyperactive stars, like that at the heart of Red Square. All we witness, closest to home, are the effects on the Sun's 'surface,' in its superheated corona, and the solar 'wind.'

I don't know if anyone has come up with a convincing argument that explains how sun spots affect the Earth's climate.

[...]

Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. Dr. Sam Solanski, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was...." Dr. Solanski admitted to not knowing what is causing the Sun to burn brighter. A leading authority, Eugene N. Parker, adds, "...we really do not properly understand the physics of the varying luminosity of the Sun." This highlights the fundamental problem with the global warming verdict from climate experts. It is based on profound ignorance about how the Sun really "ticks" and what forms of energy are input to a planet's climate. For this they can blame astrophysicists.

[...]

Dude,

I fully empathize with you.

A few years ago i was wondering why galaxies are flat. To cut a longish story short, my questioning has lead me to this site (and others) http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php

Probably the most simple, obvious & 'close to home' challenge that demonstrates the lack of objectiveness in the current comsological climate is this - Ask yourself why nearly all the 'impact' craters on the moon are from 'impacts' that are perpendicular to the surface (from all sides! ie - where are the ones that 'skimmed' along the surface??). The site above gives you the answer. And it's not just the 'rogue' site above. Realise that there are scientists & engineers who are also saying that the current common understanding of the cosmos is up a black hole without a gamma ray paddle. And what's more - they have a coherent theory, a lot of which can be backed up by experiments in earth bound labs.

There's a lot more sites out there along the same lines as above, but what i'm convinced of is that we can demonstrate a lot more in the lab that is predictive of galaxies / plantary rings etc, without the need for the complex mathematics / relativity...and general 'darkness' that the current comsomological 'consensus' would have you believe.