I think you guys are missing the point. The void correlates with a cold spot within the CMB. The CMB is not supposed to have artifacts. It's supposed to be unrelated to the items between us and it. When you find a relation, that would tend to suggest that the CMB may have a more local source -- which actually threatens the primary proof for the Big Bang in the first place.
If I may, can I suggest that you guys are not being skeptical about what you're reading? I don't mean to be critical here, but a local source for the CMB would confirm what the Electric Universe Theorists have been telling people for some time now: that the CMB is an electric fog that is generated locally.
I highly recommend that you pay attention to the logic being used at the end of the article:
Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
At some point in time within the development of the Big Bang Theory, it became normal to say that light can be absorbed more by nothingness than by matter. In another article here (http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast22fe b99_1.htm), they explain this theory, called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect:
The Universe is filled with conglomerations of galaxies called clusters that are millions of light years across, consisting of hundreds or thousands of galaxies held together by gravity. Mostly clusters have atmospheres of very hot gas that we can see because of the X-rays they emit. Sunyaev and Zeldovich realized that something interesting happens when a CMBR photon passes through such a cluster. There is a good chance that it will collide with one of the electrons in the hot atmosphere. In the process, some photons would gain energy while others would lose energy. At microwave radio frequencies, they predicted, the intensity of the CMBR would appear to be depleted in the direction of the cluster because the photons would be "scattered" to other frequencies outside the microwave frequency band. This process is called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect.
[...]
Typically, the deficit in the CMBR is only 0.05% of the cosmic microwave background intensity. Detecting these small perturbations requires lots of observing time and painstaking data reduction.
So, the SZ effect allows them to explain away the fact that some galaxies are not casting shadows against the CMB. If there isn't a shadow for some of them, then perhaps that's because the photons are being energized by the obstruction. One is left wondering if the nothingness in the void is absorbing the quantity of light that they were predicting that nothingness should even absorb?
But, let me ask you guys this: Isn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void, and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?
I'm afraid that's completely off-topic to the thread. Didn't really seem very relevant, to be honest. I could have also talked about how Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted all of the results of the Deep Impact mission based upon the theory you mention, but *that* wasn't relevant either. This separate theory is not really so dependent upon those others, and not everybody believes that we should judge people on the basis of how "popular" their beliefs are (even though that is increasingly a common belief). Sometimes, interesting ideas are just that: interesting ideas. Go figure! It seems at least some others agree with me on this here on this board, and you'll have to now assemble a small army to mod me down to make sure that others do not think about these interesting ideas, and that everybody in science continues to conform to mainstream beliefs. I'm not really sure why it matters so much to so many people that everybody think the same exact things, as it doesn't seem like a very productive way to get at answers, but I've come to accept it by now regardless...;)
Did anybody else wonder how the particles deposited 30,000 years ago by the tail continue to emit ultraviolet light? Why wouldn't the hot particles emitting this light just dissipate their heat into the cold depths of space, unless the heat was being somehow replenished?
Irving Langmuir called it plasma exactly because it appeared to be life-like in its behaviors. For anybody who has a basic understanding of how plasmas behave in the laboratory, your first instinct is that plasmas tend to behave like living creatures. They can have cell walls, which will protect their charge by surrounding invaders. They can transfer current as if it's nutrients. But, after thinking about it for long enough, most people will progress to the realization that life is instead probably plasma-like. The question of whether or not there is good reason for this remains an open, and very interesting, question.
There is a coming together of some interesting theories with regards to the origins of life in the universe that have not yet quite made it into the mainstream press, but which is evolving into a really interesting theory. Wallace Thornhill has been speculating for some time now that life originates inside of the atmospheres of brown dwarf stars. On the surface, this sounds pretty absurd. But, when you dig deeper, he makes some very good points, and his theory is completely compatible with the thesis postulated within the article in question.
Dusty plasmas tend to daisy-chain positive-negative-positive-negative, etc. This creates a sheath, and the right-hand-rule will tend to turn this sheet into vortex types of shapes, as the article mentions. This could explain the shape of DNA. Don't forget that the Urey-Miller experiment required electrical input also.
As for brown dwarfs, they come into the picture because their atmospheres should be low enough temperature to allow life to exist on planets traveling through them (which may sound kind of weird, but is an idea that has been proposed by mainstream astrophysicists in the past). Don't forget that we are inside of the Sun's atmosphere already. On such planets, the entire planetary surface would be bathed in a diffuse light and relatively weak electrical activity at all times. This would be the ideal setting for the formulation of both DNA and lifeforms because there would be no seasons, no tropics and no ice caps. Furthermore, L-type brown dwarfs have water as a dominant molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its satellites would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down from the sky.
He adds:
The problem for SETI is that no radio signals could penetrate the glowing plasma shell. Nor would any intelligent life forms be aware of the spectacle of the universe that we are privileged to witness.
Wallace Thornhill's theory that life originates inside of the atmospheres of brown dwarf stars is far superior. If you take a look at the recent plasma crystal experiments that have been going on, you can see that dusty plasmas (which people like to forget are electrical phenomenon) tend to daisy-chain positive-negative-positive-negative, etc. This creates vortex types of shapes, and a recent experiment demonstrates some success with a double-helix like DNA. That paper is here...
Even the Urey-Miller experiment required electrical input.
Brown dwarfs come into the picture because their atmospheres should be low enough temperature to allow life to exist on planets traveling through them. On such planets, the entire planetary surface would be bathed in a diffuse light and relatively weak electrical activity at all times. This would be the ideal setting for the formulation of both DNA and lifeforms because there would be no seasons, no tropics and no ice caps. Furthermore, L-type brown dwarfs have water as a dominant molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its satellites would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down from the sky. He adds:
The problem for SETI is that no radio signals could penetrate the glowing plasma shell. Nor would any intelligent life forms be aware of the spectacle of the universe that we are privileged to witness.
The statistic about the chances that comets are the harbingers of life is a completely meaningless number. We couldn't assign even slightly meaningful statistics to astrophysical theories until we had figured everything out at the very end.
I'm sure some of Thornhill's details don't correspond with the mainstream views of brown dwarfs in various ways, but it stands as yet another prediction by him. He has quite an impressive track record on these sorts of things, by the way, so people would be wise to not discount him on it.
The scientific method has resulted in some of our greatest achievements, but we must be willing to challenge accepted wisdom if we are to be sure not to fall into the same trap that "spiritual scientists" did.
Bravo!!!
How long before scientific wisdom is defended in such ways? Perhaps it will not take the form of violent oppression, but who has not felt the sting of a rebuke from someone who claims the backing of some institution?
It's already happening. Halton Arp lost his access to American telescopes for attempting to publish a paper that demonstrated that redshift is not always an accurate way to determine distance. His disputed statistics that demonstrate that quasars are aligned along the axes of spiral galaxies have been duplicated by a third party using newer data. He continues to be ignored.
Hannes Alfven, the ultimate outsider and originator of magnetohydrodynamics, pleaded with astrophysicists during his Nobel Physics acceptance prize to drop this concept of frozen-in-place magnetic fields and instantaneous charge neutralization. He was completely ignored by the mainstream.
Wallace Thornhill correctly predicted nearly all of the results of the Deep Impact Mission, including the observation of two flashes at impact -- something that nobody else was even contemplating at the time -- and to this day, pre-impact images clearly show whiteouts where electrical plasma arcing is occurring. It's been something like twelve years since that mission, and NASA is still baffled by those results. Thornhill's prediction has been completely ignored, as if it never happened.
Immanuel Velikovsky admittedly said a lot of silly things, but his assertion that Venus would be very hot proved to be an accurate prediction at a time when the world was expecting Venus to be only slightly warmer than the Earth. His nemesis, the more popular Carl Sagan, claimed that the high temperature of Venus must be the result of a "Super Greenhouse" effect -- rather than any silly Catastrophist ideas about Venus emitting heat. Four probes were sent to get a close-up look at Venus. Between them, they carried two different types of IR flux meters. All four probes returned data that confirmed our own terrestrial calculations that Venus' albedo was 0.8 -- which means that Venus is emitting 15-20% more heat than it absorbs -- and that the heat was originating specifically from the surface of the planet. But rather than accept these results, a peer reviewed paper written by Taylor (VENUS, Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1983, page 758) restated the hypothesis of a.76 albedo within the conclusion:
"A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 +-.02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative (J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of global energy balance, yeild a value of the albedo of 0.76 +-.01; this is the most probable value."
In other words, heresay (under the guise of "personal communications") was deemed sufficient evidence to consider the case closed within a peer reviewed paper!
And by the way, Einstein was as radical a thinker as one could have encountered at the time. He questioned everything he was taught, and remarked openly on how surprising it was that children learned anything at all from the wrote learning system.
When Einstein died, Velikovksky's "Worlds in Collision" was sitting on his desk. Regardless of what we may all think of Velikovsky
I'm working on a documentary based upon Michael Moore's strategy of confrontation to reduce these sometimes complex EU-related arguments into something more palatable to the audience. If this can be pulled off well enough to bring the general public up to speed, then within this context, the actions and statements of mainstream advocates like ScienceApologist and Tim Thompson will take on a totally different meaning. It is possible to fight pseudo-skepticism, but it requires a very specific response involving interviews, case studies, philosophy of science and a healthy dose of just plain common sense. It may take several hours to fully pull it off, but it won't require massive amounts of computer graphics to do it.
You have many legitimate concerns about EU Theory, and I have to admit that this is good because it demonstrates that you are thinking instead of memorizing. But what saddens me is that *all* of the answers to your questions about EU Theory are available in "The Electric Sky" -- which is basically a statement of what the theory says and the qualitative evidence that supports it. I speak to people on Slashdot all the time about EU Theory, and unfortunately, most of the questions arising about it are already answered quite clearly in that text. People just refuse to read it because they've been convinced that our current theories are representative of reality. This is in spite of the fact that these current theories have horrible predictive capabilities (surprises are still far too common).
Then there's way a few of them make stupid claims such as astronomers and physicists don't study plasma or electromagnetics in school, which is so ridiculous I don't even know what to say.
The real issue is this: if you took a list of the fundamental challenges that EU Theorists disagree with mainstream astrophysicists on to a laboratory plasma physicist, would he agree with those fundamental challenges? Namely...
1. That plasma is scalable over a very large order of magnitudes. In other words, we can reproduce many observations of plasmas in space using laboratory plasma experiments here on Earth.
2. That magnetic and electric fields are the inseparable result of electric currents (they can induce currents, yes, but are themselves the result of moving electric charges).
3. That instantaneous charge neutralization never occurs in the real, physical world. Plasmas are not actually perfect conductors. Space plasmas will tend to be low in charge density, but high in charge mobility. Weak electric fields can and do exist inside of them.
4. That the frozen-in-place magnetic field concept is bogus. It's originator, Alfven, preferred the term "pseudo-pedagogical", which he used to describe the concept in his Nobel Physics acceptance speech in 1970. In reality, moving magnetic fields within a plasma create electric currents.
5. That the concept of magnetic reconnection is a farse that has never been observed. Instead, what has been observed is the release of large amounts of energy from magnetic fields in which it was previously stored. The theory of magnetic reconnection is redundant of physical laboratory plasma processes that we already understand. Magnetic field lines are nothing more than instantaneous descriptors of the magnitude and direction of a vector field. They do not "open up", "merge", "recombine", "twist", "dance" or whatever the latest popular term on space.com is.
6. The practice of wholesale modeling of space plasmas as fluids is flawed. Gases become electrical plasmas with less than 1% ionization within the laboratory, and electrical plasmas do not respond to gravity when in the presence of even a very weak electric or magnetic field. That would tend to extremely limit the application of fluids equations for plasmas, and essentially negates the practical usefulness of any model that attempts to portray space plasmas as fluids governed primarily by gravity.
The question is: would the laboratory plasma physicist agree with these statements that EU Theorists propose. The answer is quite certainly and undoubtedly, yes. Mainstream astrophysics has unfortunately become increasingly divorced from laboratory physics work, instead opting to substitute in invisible particles and forces to make up for their postulation that plasmas cannot do anything of importance when they transfer electrical charges.
Tim Thompson, a physicist with JPL, has addressed some more of the EU claims, particularly the problems they claim with the standard model: http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html
Yeah, we've gotten to know ScienceApologist quite well over the past three weeks. It's become extremely apparent that Josh has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia for the sole reason that he is concerned that people may believe it. I've spoken to Josh and he takes the view that everything that he has learned from his astrophysical textbooks is without a doubt true. When presented with actual quotes from astrophysicists who are specifically responsible for formulating theories related to supernovae explosions explaining that the materials about supernova in the textbooks are at best guesses, he really had no response but to say that their remarks were being taken out of context. Out of respect for Josh's personal life, I will not go into details, but it appears that his crusade against Electric Universe Theory on wikipedia is probably a result of his own persecution as a member of a minority group. This is extremely unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that he is censoring EU Theory from wikipedia, and that the public, if given the chance to decide, would prefer to know that Electric Universe Theory is not just a rock band.
I will repeat once more that this entire situation is extremely unfortunate. You, with everybody else, will one day come to realize how it is so. But so long as you restrict your own awareness of what EU Theory states, you will unfortunately not realize that it is doing a better job of predicting our observations than the mainstream theories. That there is so much animosity and hostility about all of this is what saddens me. Science was never intended to be like sports or politics. We don't root for our home teams or vote on what reality is. Science is supposed to differ in that it is supposed to be a competition of ideas judged on the basis of the observations and theoretical predictive capabilities. That's unfortunately not the way that it's being treated today, and it makes me very sad to see it so. Predictions increasingly mean very little. On occasions when I've tried to post EU Theory predictions on Slashdot, these *predictions* have been labeled as "Troll". One is left wondering: how will we as a culture ever figure out a theory of everything if we won't even allow people to post predictions to test their theories by?
Isn't this just another in a long line of gas giants that are too young, and too close to the host stars for our theories of planetary formation?
It also happens to be one more observation that supports the Electric Universe Theory. This planet is most likely a red dwarf that is no longer luminous. It is either on the verge of gaining its luminosity or losing it, according to EU Theory. Scientists might observe it actually light up and turn into a star. It's only 1400 light years away, so this shouldn't be too hard to actually observe if somebody's paying attention when it happens.
It's really quite sad that people on this board do not take EU Theory more seriously. It offers a very simple explanation for all of these anomalous observations that are being made. There are no stellar or planetary anomalies left once you apply EU Theory. It absorbs all of them that we've seen so far.
If we continue to act in a pseudo-skeptical way where all against-the-mainstream theories have *more* to prove than the mainstream, despite the fact that the mainstream theories have never truly demonstrated any real predictive power, then we will have locked ourselves into a theory that does not actually work. All evidence supporting alternative theories can always be disputed on a case-by-case basis. But this is called "explaining away the data". A true, rational evaluation of which theory is a better fit does not occur until people have read what both have to say, and attempt to prove both. Only then, after we compare the two proofs, can we say with any objectivity that one is better than another.
In the case of the puffy planet, it is far easier to see how something like this can happen within the EU view. Gaseous planets puff out in an attempt to gather more electrical energy (when they're growing), or they lose their stellar luminosity and become categorized by us as a planet, as they lose their electrical focus.
But, instead, a rational discussion of these concepts is pushed aside, as if there is no value in having it. It's really quite sad to observe this happening week after week after week. I highly recommend that people here fully inform themselves of what EU Theory states by reading Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". My point here will subsequently become fully self-evident. It saddens me that I cannot witness the collective intelligence of people here on Slashdot evaluating this enigmatic data within the framework of EU Theory. That conversation would be far more interesting actually, not to mention beneficial -- by contrasting and comparing the two frameworks, the bar would be raised and the conversation would by default benefit.
There's another possibility -- which I'm sure is not popular around here, but which is in fact the most likely explanation: Our theories of how alien life might communicate over long distances is very likely wrong. We already know that radio communications are inappropriate. Takes far too long. What certainty can we in fact assign to the idea that we fully understand all of the possible communications mechanisms when in fact astrophysicists continue to be surprised on a weekly basis by space observations? Take an honest look at the predictive track record that mainstream astrophysicists have. Subtract out all of the theories that were created after the observations were made. Look just at the mainstream theories' predictive capabilities, and ask yourself: why are we still being surprised by enigmatic observations? Predictive ability is really the only honest assessment of the theories we have. If we aren't exhibiting great accuracy with our astrophysical predictions, then we should not consider our theories about alien communications to be even more accurate.
The real problem is that people here, and within the field of astrophysics, would generally prefer to not consider something like that. There is a general aversion to thinking that we might have made mistakes in our own mathematical modeling of the universe -- so much so that we would prefer to postulate invisible matters and forces are causing the things we see with our telescopes.
Furthermore, pseudoskepticism is taking an increasingly prominent role in science these days. It's becoming instrumental in deflecting attention away from anomalous data. The existence of a possible answer that conforms to mainstream views is now sufficient to ignore the fact that many of these anomalies in fact formulate a cohesive story. If you dismiss each of the individual anomalies on a case-by-case basis, then you can easily miss any fabric that might connect them together. Pseudoskeptics have taken over wikipedia and have long ruled this forum here. Finding a place where evidence that clearly contradicts mainstream beliefs can actually be discussed in a rational manner is becoming increasingly difficult. Evidence and prediction are losing value relative to consensus. If we allow this transition to continue on its current course, we will convince ourselves that we've figured everything out before we actually have a theory of everything. We can quite easily cause ourselves to ask the wrong questions under these circumstances, and a theory of everything -- as well as alien communications -- will seem forever elusive. Make no doubt about it: our own perception of our own accomplishments plays a very prominent role in our ability to solve these sorts of problems.
Spoken like a true pseudoskeptic -- as if there is nothing of any interest in the entire world that has not already been fully explained by science. Pseudoskepticism has become a religion of sorts in the scientific community lately, and it's starting to have a noticeable effect on the way that we treat anomalous data. It's causing people to look the other way when we should be investigating. So long as general relativity and quantum mechanics don't agree with one another, and so long as there are still surprises in our space observations, pseudoskepticism is really premature. It's holding us back. Anomalies are still important. There are still plenty of them and we need to understand them. If we ignore them, then we can convince ourselves that we already understand everything -- and by doing that, a complete theory of everything that actually works will forever elude us.
The existence of the interstellar magnetic field has been characterized by the Voyager probes. We really only have two options for explaining it: ignore laboratory plasma physics and Maxwell's Equations, and argue that it was created billions of years ago, and has not changed since. Or, we can argue with laboratory plasma physics and Maxwell's Equations that magnetic and electric fields are the inseparable result of electric currents over plasmas. In a sense, the decision has already been made by the mainstream astrophysicists for the former. But they will inevitably regret this decision as the evidence for the proliferation of electrical plasmas and double layers in space is becoming quite overwhelming. Hannes Alfven's warning will soon ring prophetic and the interpretive sciences will be thrown into chaos. I know how to make it happen.
The collapsed lava tube explanation is frequently invoked, but is unfortunately not supported much by the evidence. The debris from the collapse is frequently missing. Similarly, when mainstream astrophysicists infer the movement of this material with fluids, they oftentimes ignore the absence of an outflow at the end of the rille.
Have you investigated the Aristarchus and Tycho craters on the Moon? Those rays that come off of Tycho are not debris, but rather burn scars. It's also worth noting that this debris oftentimes lines up in a perfect line.
For Aristarchus, the supposed debris field is in fact excavated material.
As far as cometary craters are concerned, many of these craters have terraced edges, as if the force that created them was rotating as it dug into the ground (as a Birkeland Current does within the laboratory). Many of the enigmatic central peaks of craters exhibit stratigraphy. How would this stratigraphy survive a melting and re-solidification process?
It's worth mentioning that NASA has had great difficulty in understanding the Deep Impact mission results -- results which were accurately predicted by Wallace Thornhill almost in their entirety, including the fact that two flashes would be observed -- a prediction that nobody expected. It's really interesting because his prediction was ridiculed on the Slashdot forums before it was demonstrated to be true...
To my knowledge, there was never a follow-up Slashdot story that mentioned that the prediction was accurate -- as if accurate predictions no longer have any value within astrophysics. If we ignore anomalies and accurate predictions, and augment that with a massive public relations machine, it would be a simple matter to convince ourselves of things that are not necessarily true.
The OH coming off of comets, which is used to justify the belief that comets are dirty snowballs, can also be created by the simple combination of hydrogen protons from the solar wind and oxygen atoms electrically machined from surface cometary silicates. Considering that cometary comas can extend something like 1 million miles in diameter, NASA would be wise to consider that it is far more likely that the coma is an electrical phenomenon rather than a chemical one. They obviously refuse to do so because that would imply that there is a weak electric field centered at the Sun.
There is no shortage of anomalies within mainstream science today. It is very dangerous for mainstream astrophysicists to ignore the ones that they cannot adequately explain because they will eventually be exposed for doing this. Listen to these prophetic words carefully: If Michael Moore did a film on astrophysics, he would rip the whole field to shreds, and all of science would be turned upside down. It is just a matter of time before this happens.
People around here take BB Theory *very* seriously. In fact, most people around here perceive BB to be more than just a theory. It is considered to be fact. They achieve this level of certainty, however, only by disregarding vast numbers of anomalous observations and many apparent technical contradictions. Eric J Lerner goes into some detail on these contradictions at http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/, but people would be very wise to leave complex discussions of BB Theory to the astrophysicists. It's generally a lose-lose proposition for any layman to become involved in these debates. The contradictions tend to be so complicated that only BB experts and degreed astrophysicists can truly understand what threat they pose. For this reason, it can be virtually impossible to have a calm, dignified discussion about BB Theory with a BB advocate because they will typically use complex mathematics to demonstrate that the theory could still be true in spite of some apparent contradiction. But they will oftentimes in these arguments completely leave out any information related to the likelihood of the explanations they offer (perhaps in some cases because they don't even know), and they'll do their best to ridicule anybody who does not possess their own mathematical pedigree. It's not considered worth their time to explain this complex mathematical theory to people who have not been trained exactly like themselves -- which begs an important question: what if their training is somehow wrong? This is, after all, still an interpretive science. If you have to spend four years studying physics and astrophysics in order to evaluate BB Theory, then this rasises the second legitimate question: if the theory has so many apparent contradictions, why would any reasonable, objective person consider spending 5% of their lifetime learning it?
The truth is, I believe, that we can evaluate the mainstream theories without actually learning every single detail about them, through case studies. There are many instances where we can just use our eyes to discount their math. We can quite easily observe, for instance, that there are numerous rilles (canyons) on the rocky planets that move both up and down with the terrain of the planets. Furthermore, we can observe that these rilles will occasionally break up into chains of craters, and that craters are oftentimes associated with rilles. This is a very important observation that anybody can validate for themselves without an advanced mathematical degree, because it suggests that plasmas in space are electrical in nature, and that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge over electrical plasmas (as we can see plasmas doing in the laboratory). Amazingly, BB Theory has no ability to explain these anomalous rilles because it does not allow that electrical plasmas are doing anything of any significance within space. Mainstream astrophysicists just ignore them, as if they just don't exist, oblivious to the fact that whatever created them couldn't care less for gravity.
The worrisome thing to me is that it appears that the mere existence of mathematical proofs appears to increasingly be used as proof that it is true. Logic and reason, on the other hand, are increasingly considered somehow less adequate for understanding our surroundings. When observations appear anomalous, as with Halton Arp's high redshift quasars in front of low redshift spiral galaxies, we're told that our eyes are being deceived. Even when his statistics have been validated by a third party, his results continue to be ignored because they do not support BB Theory. Traditionally, math has been used as a mechanism for characterizing a theory that is probable and that abides by Occam's Razor. But now, the math has become the proof itself, when it's convenient, and without consideration for the likelihood that it even represents reality.
Longo favours a more radical theory proposed by Paolo Cea of the University of Bari, in Italy, and Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara, Italy, which suggests that magnetic fields stretched across the universe could be responsible (New Scientist, 2 September 2006, p 2. "A magnetic field would naturally orient the spiral galaxies," says Longo.
Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear: the axis of evil won't be written off any time soon. "Interest keeps growing as people find more weirdly connected observations that can't all be put down to coincidence," says Land. "And hey, everybody loves a conspiracy."
I could be wrong, but this person is probably referring to a frozen-in-place magnetic field -- an entity which is asserted to exist in space, but which we do not observe within laboratory plasma physics -- and a concept which Hannes Alfven termed "pseudo-pedagogical" in his Nobel Physics Prize acceptance speech for MHD. The frozen-in-place concept, I presume, would allow you and others to explain magnetic fields in terms of inflation, as if they have not been changing this whole time. This would also allow you to also assert that their existence is not the result of currents flowing over the plasmas -- which I believe is a violation of Maxwell's Laws.
Also, there is a surprisingly (and somewhat rare these days) honest assessment of the problems of the CMB here:
For a quick demonstrative primer in how public relations can be used to affect public opinion in the field of astrophysics, I highly recommend comparing the article run about the Galaxy Zoo in NewScientist.com compared to the AP article that has appeared on Space.com and elsewhere.
For whatever reason, the article that Space.com decided to go with fails to mention anything about this project representing a threat to mainstream cosmology or the CMB. Astrophysical enthusiasts reading Space.com, in other words, would not be informed by that article that somebody has even alleged that there is a possible anomalous artifact within the cosmic microwave background. I'm not advocating anything here other than that this appears to be more than a mere "dumbing down" of a complicated story. They could have easily dumbed down the concept of aligned galaxies and why that introduces a problem for the CMB. Instead, we got the following, which appears to not suggest any threat level to BB Theory whatsoever:
The catalog would help researchers understand how galaxies form and interact.
"At some level, what we learn about these galaxies could tell us something quite fundamental about cosmology and particle physics,'' Nichol said.
This sort of "damage control", if I may call it that, is not really very helpful when it comes to layman trying to understand what to believe.
We must be very careful of how we promote certain sceintific theories over others. It would be very easy to create a false consensus within society using public relations in this way.
NASA would be wise to also carefully contemplate what is inducing the dust to rise to form dust storms in the first place. They already have access to THEMIS images from the Mars Odyssey Mission that suggest that there is filamentation of Martian dust storms at both the leading and trailing edges. For a sample image (there are others too), go to:
In addition to that, we also know that firsthand accounts from people who have seen the inside of a tornado and lived to tell about it indicate that tornadoes here on Earth tend to shimmer like a fluorescent light from the inside. This is typically obstructed from the outside by dust. There's a brief mention here. I'm sure there are other sources for this information:
This could indicate that tornadoes and Martian dust devils are actually both electrical plasmas, and that the electrical activity is inducing the vortex -- not the other way around.
It is possible that vortexes are the natural result of the right-hand rule within electrodynamics. Peter Thomson's Charge Sheath Vortex site is an excellent tutorial on how this may be so:
He demonstrates his point at the end by creating a miniature vortex using electricity in a petri dish.
My point here is that NASA should seriously consider that the Martian dust is molecularly bipolar and is responding to solar and other electrical plasmas that are affecting the Martian planet. The evidence from both Mars and Earth suggests that it is a possibility.
We already know for a fact that upper atmosphere lightning exists. The weather scientists told us that this was not possible, and they were proven to be wrong. It's now easy to find pictures of upper-atmosphere sprites on the web. Try these:
So, why isn't it possible that they could also be wrong about current theories about tornadoes? And why in the world are those dust storms filamentary? When we see enigmatic features on Mars, we should create future missions to follow that data. As of recently, NASA has been exclusively following their script instead of the anomalies. We need to be doing both.
Planets and stars share a common morphology that mainstream astrophysicists are not paying attention to. The equatorial torus and polar jets are common to all objects in space within EU Theory. They just differ in strength depending upon the current density moving through that object as well as, among other things, from the perspective of the ground, the atmospheric thickness of the body. Mars clearly has less atmosphere than the Earth, so one should expect that its polar regions would be far more dangerous than the rest of the planet. We see quite a bit of evidence for this, in fact, on Mars' South Pole. If we send people there to investigate the "geysers", Martian spiders or ice cap, NASA may run into serious problems.
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...
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:
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...
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:
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...
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:
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.
It's unfortunately a common example for people to use here on Slashdot, and bringing it up leads people to believe that EU Theory isn't real science. I wanted to make sure that you realized that EU Theory is based upon laboratory plasma physics. In fact, the mainstream astrophysicists are the ones asserting that the laboratory plasma results do not scale or apply to the bigger universe -- which, under any other circumstances, people would recognize as being completely absurd. Their entire theory of magnetic reconnection, which presumably explains how the Sun's corona can be 100x hotter than its surface (!), is redundant of *real* laboratory plasma physics. They refuse to accept double layers on the Sun, however, because double layers are the result of electrical current. This battle has been raging for many years now. The guy (Hannes Alfven) who created magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), the math used to model plasmas in space as having frozen-in-place magnetic fields and as being ideal conductors, denounced his own prior convictions regarding these fluid modeling concepts as "pseudo-pedagogical" (his words) during his Nobel Physics Prize for inventing that field in 1970. Not many astrophysicists are even aware of that because his warnings were completely ignored.
the onus is on you to promote your theory until it gains mass acceptance. the fact that it has not leads me to believe the nasa guys have the right idea.
Quite a bit of evidence has already been provided to the public. Very few people are paying attention. NASA and the astrophysicists have a nasty habit of not promoting results which they do not understand. They did this for the Deep Impact mission, which should have been the point where they realized that comets are electrical in nature. They keep on pointing to the streams of OH they see coming off of the comets as evidence of water even though they cannot see water on the comet's surface, and even though OH can quite easily be generated by combining the solar wind's protons with oxygen released from cometary silicates through electric machining. There is a long history of data regarding Venus that indicates that it is a *new* planet, still cooling off from its recent birth. We've seen both radioactive and heat signatures that suggest as much. The story of the extinction of the woolly mammoth is a very fascinating in-depth study of how mainstream science glosses over enigmatic findings. One Russian scientist has discovered that radioactive decay rates correlate with phases of the Moon, Sun and stars. His research was never followed up on. Halton Arp has discovered a correlation between quasars and the axes of nearby spiral galaxies, and his stats *have* been reproduced. He's also imaged high redshift quasars in *front* of low-redshift spiral galaxies and attached to low-redshift spiral galaxies. But his reward was that he lost his telescope time and had to move to Europe to continue his work. The very fact that the Sun's solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets is highly enigmatic for the standard solar model. What mechanical force induces a sustained acceleration of charged particles over millions of miles? We see jets all over the universe now that span light years in length. That is far longer than the lifetime of a photon, so these are undeniably jets of *matter*. The only way to keep a jet of matter together in space is if it's a spinning vortex, and the *only* way that you can do this is with an electrical plasma. Plasma physicists -- namely Anthony Perratt -- can generate the spiral galaxy morphology with nothing more than electrical plasmas. No dark matter is required. It is the natural evolution of two adjacent Birkeland Currents. Mainstream astrophysicists have to resort to collisions to induce spiral galaxies, and by their own accounts, collisions should be *extremely* rare. Don Scott's book, "The Electric Sky", is a stunni
Slashdot Mirror
People appear to not actually understand that this is a problem for the mainstream theories. It's quite surreal, actually.
3 41295
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=278497&cid=20
If anybody notices it, that one's gonna stir the pot!
If I may, can I suggest that you guys are not being skeptical about what you're reading? I don't mean to be critical here, but a local source for the CMB would confirm what the Electric Universe Theorists have been telling people for some time now: that the CMB is an electric fog that is generated locally.
I highly recommend that you pay attention to the logic being used at the end of the article:
At some point in time within the development of the Big Bang Theory, it became normal to say that light can be absorbed more by nothingness than by matter. In another article here (http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast22f
So, the SZ effect allows them to explain away the fact that some galaxies are not casting shadows against the CMB. If there isn't a shadow for some of them, then perhaps that's because the photons are being energized by the obstruction. One is left wondering if the nothingness in the void is absorbing the quantity of light that they were predicting that nothingness should even absorb?
But, let me ask you guys this: Isn't it just possible that the cold spot *is* related to the void, and that the Big Bang is a paradigm in its death throws?
I'm afraid that's completely off-topic to the thread. Didn't really seem very relevant, to be honest. I could have also talked about how Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted all of the results of the Deep Impact mission based upon the theory you mention, but *that* wasn't relevant either. This separate theory is not really so dependent upon those others, and not everybody believes that we should judge people on the basis of how "popular" their beliefs are (even though that is increasingly a common belief). Sometimes, interesting ideas are just that: interesting ideas. Go figure! It seems at least some others agree with me on this here on this board, and you'll have to now assemble a small army to mod me down to make sure that others do not think about these interesting ideas, and that everybody in science continues to conform to mainstream beliefs. I'm not really sure why it matters so much to so many people that everybody think the same exact things, as it doesn't seem like a very productive way to get at answers, but I've come to accept it by now regardless ... ;)
Did anybody else wonder how the particles deposited 30,000 years ago by the tail continue to emit ultraviolet light? Why wouldn't the hot particles emitting this light just dissipate their heat into the cold depths of space, unless the heat was being somehow replenished?
What am I missing?
There is a coming together of some interesting theories with regards to the origins of life in the universe that have not yet quite made it into the mainstream press, but which is evolving into a really interesting theory. Wallace Thornhill has been speculating for some time now that life originates inside of the atmospheres of brown dwarf stars. On the surface, this sounds pretty absurd. But, when you dig deeper, he makes some very good points, and his theory is completely compatible with the thesis postulated within the article in question.
Dusty plasmas tend to daisy-chain positive-negative-positive-negative, etc. This creates a sheath, and the right-hand-rule will tend to turn this sheet into vortex types of shapes, as the article mentions. This could explain the shape of DNA. Don't forget that the Urey-Miller experiment required electrical input also.
As for brown dwarfs, they come into the picture because their atmospheres should be low enough temperature to allow life to exist on planets traveling through them (which may sound kind of weird, but is an idea that has been proposed by mainstream astrophysicists in the past). Don't forget that we are inside of the Sun's atmosphere already. On such planets, the entire planetary surface would be bathed in a diffuse light and relatively weak electrical activity at all times. This would be the ideal setting for the formulation of both DNA and lifeforms because there would be no seasons, no tropics and no ice caps. Furthermore, L-type brown dwarfs have water as a dominant molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its satellites would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down from the sky.
He adds:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/n
Even the Urey-Miller experiment required electrical input.
Brown dwarfs come into the picture because their atmospheres should be low enough temperature to allow life to exist on planets traveling through them. On such planets, the entire planetary surface would be bathed in a diffuse light and relatively weak electrical activity at all times. This would be the ideal setting for the formulation of both DNA and lifeforms because there would be no seasons, no tropics and no ice caps. Furthermore, L-type brown dwarfs have water as a dominant molecule in their spectra, along with many other biologically important molecules and elements. Its satellites would accumulate atmospheres and water would mist down from the sky. He adds:
The statistic about the chances that comets are the harbingers of life is a completely meaningless number. We couldn't assign even slightly meaningful statistics to astrophysical theories until we had figured everything out at the very end.
I'm sure some of Thornhill's details don't correspond with the mainstream views of brown dwarfs in various ways, but it stands as yet another prediction by him. He has quite an impressive track record on these sorts of things, by the way, so people would be wise to not discount him on it.
Bravo!!!
It's already happening. Halton Arp lost his access to American telescopes for attempting to publish a paper that demonstrated that redshift is not always an accurate way to determine distance. His disputed statistics that demonstrate that quasars are aligned along the axes of spiral galaxies have been duplicated by a third party using newer data. He continues to be ignored.
.76 albedo within the conclusion:
Hannes Alfven, the ultimate outsider and originator of magnetohydrodynamics, pleaded with astrophysicists during his Nobel Physics acceptance prize to drop this concept of frozen-in-place magnetic fields and instantaneous charge neutralization. He was completely ignored by the mainstream.
Wallace Thornhill correctly predicted nearly all of the results of the Deep Impact Mission, including the observation of two flashes at impact -- something that nobody else was even contemplating at the time -- and to this day, pre-impact images clearly show whiteouts where electrical plasma arcing is occurring. It's been something like twelve years since that mission, and NASA is still baffled by those results. Thornhill's prediction has been completely ignored, as if it never happened.
Immanuel Velikovsky admittedly said a lot of silly things, but his assertion that Venus would be very hot proved to be an accurate prediction at a time when the world was expecting Venus to be only slightly warmer than the Earth. His nemesis, the more popular Carl Sagan, claimed that the high temperature of Venus must be the result of a "Super Greenhouse" effect -- rather than any silly Catastrophist ideas about Venus emitting heat. Four probes were sent to get a close-up look at Venus. Between them, they carried two different types of IR flux meters. All four probes returned data that confirmed our own terrestrial calculations that Venus' albedo was 0.8 -- which means that Venus is emitting 15-20% more heat than it absorbs -- and that the heat was originating specifically from the surface of the planet. But rather than accept these results, a peer reviewed paper written by Taylor (VENUS, Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1983, page 758) restated the hypothesis of a
In other words, heresay (under the guise of "personal communications") was deemed sufficient evidence to consider the case closed within a peer reviewed paper!
When Einstein died, Velikovksky's "Worlds in Collision" was sitting on his desk. Regardless of what we may all think of Velikovsky
I'm working on a documentary based upon Michael Moore's strategy of confrontation to reduce these sometimes complex EU-related arguments into something more palatable to the audience. If this can be pulled off well enough to bring the general public up to speed, then within this context, the actions and statements of mainstream advocates like ScienceApologist and Tim Thompson will take on a totally different meaning. It is possible to fight pseudo-skepticism, but it requires a very specific response involving interviews, case studies, philosophy of science and a healthy dose of just plain common sense. It may take several hours to fully pull it off, but it won't require massive amounts of computer graphics to do it.
...
You may also appreciate this
http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html
I find this to be quite useful to understanding the Slashdot forum.
If somebody can explain how my posting is supposed to be "flamebait", that would perhaps help objective people trying to understand what to believe.
The real issue is this: if you took a list of the fundamental challenges that EU Theorists disagree with mainstream astrophysicists on to a laboratory plasma physicist, would he agree with those fundamental challenges? Namely ...
1. That plasma is scalable over a very large order of magnitudes. In other words, we can reproduce many observations of plasmas in space using laboratory plasma experiments here on Earth.
2. That magnetic and electric fields are the inseparable result of electric currents (they can induce currents, yes, but are themselves the result of moving electric charges).
3. That instantaneous charge neutralization never occurs in the real, physical world. Plasmas are not actually perfect conductors. Space plasmas will tend to be low in charge density, but high in charge mobility. Weak electric fields can and do exist inside of them.
4. That the frozen-in-place magnetic field concept is bogus. It's originator, Alfven, preferred the term "pseudo-pedagogical", which he used to describe the concept in his Nobel Physics acceptance speech in 1970. In reality, moving magnetic fields within a plasma create electric currents.
5. That the concept of magnetic reconnection is a farse that has never been observed. Instead, what has been observed is the release of large amounts of energy from magnetic fields in which it was previously stored. The theory of magnetic reconnection is redundant of physical laboratory plasma processes that we already understand. Magnetic field lines are nothing more than instantaneous descriptors of the magnitude and direction of a vector field. They do not "open up", "merge", "recombine", "twist", "dance" or whatever the latest popular term on space.com is.
6. The practice of wholesale modeling of space plasmas as fluids is flawed. Gases become electrical plasmas with less than 1% ionization within the laboratory, and electrical plasmas do not respond to gravity when in the presence of even a very weak electric or magnetic field. That would tend to extremely limit the application of fluids equations for plasmas, and essentially negates the practical usefulness of any model that attempts to portray space plasmas as fluids governed primarily by gravity.
The question is: would the laboratory plasma physicist agree with these statements that EU Theorists propose. The answer is quite certainly and undoubtedly, yes. Mainstream astrophysics has unfortunately become increasingly divorced from laboratory physics work, instead opting to substitute in invisible particles and forces to make up for their postulation that plasmas cannot do anything of importance when they transfer electrical charges.
That material was ge
Yeah, we've gotten to know ScienceApologist quite well over the past three weeks. It's become extremely apparent that Josh has been censoring EU Theory from wikipedia for the sole reason that he is concerned that people may believe it. I've spoken to Josh and he takes the view that everything that he has learned from his astrophysical textbooks is without a doubt true. When presented with actual quotes from astrophysicists who are specifically responsible for formulating theories related to supernovae explosions explaining that the materials about supernova in the textbooks are at best guesses, he really had no response but to say that their remarks were being taken out of context. Out of respect for Josh's personal life, I will not go into details, but it appears that his crusade against Electric Universe Theory on wikipedia is probably a result of his own persecution as a member of a minority group. This is extremely unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that he is censoring EU Theory from wikipedia, and that the public, if given the chance to decide, would prefer to know that Electric Universe Theory is not just a rock band.
...
I will repeat once more that this entire situation is extremely unfortunate. You, with everybody else, will one day come to realize how it is so. But so long as you restrict your own awareness of what EU Theory states, you will unfortunately not realize that it is doing a better job of predicting our observations than the mainstream theories. That there is so much animosity and hostility about all of this is what saddens me. Science was never intended to be like sports or politics. We don't root for our home teams or vote on what reality is. Science is supposed to differ in that it is supposed to be a competition of ideas judged on the basis of the observations and theoretical predictive capabilities. That's unfortunately not the way that it's being treated today, and it makes me very sad to see it so. Predictions increasingly mean very little. On occasions when I've tried to post EU Theory predictions on Slashdot, these *predictions* have been labeled as "Troll". One is left wondering: how will we as a culture ever figure out a theory of everything if we won't even allow people to post predictions to test their theories by?
It's truly quite sad
It also happens to be one more observation that supports the Electric Universe Theory. This planet is most likely a red dwarf that is no longer luminous. It is either on the verge of gaining its luminosity or losing it, according to EU Theory. Scientists might observe it actually light up and turn into a star. It's only 1400 light years away, so this shouldn't be too hard to actually observe if somebody's paying attention when it happens.
It's really quite sad that people on this board do not take EU Theory more seriously. It offers a very simple explanation for all of these anomalous observations that are being made. There are no stellar or planetary anomalies left once you apply EU Theory. It absorbs all of them that we've seen so far.
If we continue to act in a pseudo-skeptical way where all against-the-mainstream theories have *more* to prove than the mainstream, despite the fact that the mainstream theories have never truly demonstrated any real predictive power, then we will have locked ourselves into a theory that does not actually work. All evidence supporting alternative theories can always be disputed on a case-by-case basis. But this is called "explaining away the data". A true, rational evaluation of which theory is a better fit does not occur until people have read what both have to say, and attempt to prove both. Only then, after we compare the two proofs, can we say with any objectivity that one is better than another.
In the case of the puffy planet, it is far easier to see how something like this can happen within the EU view. Gaseous planets puff out in an attempt to gather more electrical energy (when they're growing), or they lose their stellar luminosity and become categorized by us as a planet, as they lose their electrical focus.
But, instead, a rational discussion of these concepts is pushed aside, as if there is no value in having it. It's really quite sad to observe this happening week after week after week. I highly recommend that people here fully inform themselves of what EU Theory states by reading Don Scott's "The Electric Sky". My point here will subsequently become fully self-evident. It saddens me that I cannot witness the collective intelligence of people here on Slashdot evaluating this enigmatic data within the framework of EU Theory. That conversation would be far more interesting actually, not to mention beneficial -- by contrasting and comparing the two frameworks, the bar would be raised and the conversation would by default benefit.
There's another possibility -- which I'm sure is not popular around here, but which is in fact the most likely explanation: Our theories of how alien life might communicate over long distances is very likely wrong. We already know that radio communications are inappropriate. Takes far too long. What certainty can we in fact assign to the idea that we fully understand all of the possible communications mechanisms when in fact astrophysicists continue to be surprised on a weekly basis by space observations? Take an honest look at the predictive track record that mainstream astrophysicists have. Subtract out all of the theories that were created after the observations were made. Look just at the mainstream theories' predictive capabilities, and ask yourself: why are we still being surprised by enigmatic observations? Predictive ability is really the only honest assessment of the theories we have. If we aren't exhibiting great accuracy with our astrophysical predictions, then we should not consider our theories about alien communications to be even more accurate.
The real problem is that people here, and within the field of astrophysics, would generally prefer to not consider something like that. There is a general aversion to thinking that we might have made mistakes in our own mathematical modeling of the universe -- so much so that we would prefer to postulate invisible matters and forces are causing the things we see with our telescopes.
Furthermore, pseudoskepticism is taking an increasingly prominent role in science these days. It's becoming instrumental in deflecting attention away from anomalous data. The existence of a possible answer that conforms to mainstream views is now sufficient to ignore the fact that many of these anomalies in fact formulate a cohesive story. If you dismiss each of the individual anomalies on a case-by-case basis, then you can easily miss any fabric that might connect them together. Pseudoskeptics have taken over wikipedia and have long ruled this forum here. Finding a place where evidence that clearly contradicts mainstream beliefs can actually be discussed in a rational manner is becoming increasingly difficult. Evidence and prediction are losing value relative to consensus. If we allow this transition to continue on its current course, we will convince ourselves that we've figured everything out before we actually have a theory of everything. We can quite easily cause ourselves to ask the wrong questions under these circumstances, and a theory of everything -- as well as alien communications -- will seem forever elusive. Make no doubt about it: our own perception of our own accomplishments plays a very prominent role in our ability to solve these sorts of problems.
Spoken like a true pseudoskeptic -- as if there is nothing of any interest in the entire world that has not already been fully explained by science. Pseudoskepticism has become a religion of sorts in the scientific community lately, and it's starting to have a noticeable effect on the way that we treat anomalous data. It's causing people to look the other way when we should be investigating. So long as general relativity and quantum mechanics don't agree with one another, and so long as there are still surprises in our space observations, pseudoskepticism is really premature. It's holding us back. Anomalies are still important. There are still plenty of them and we need to understand them. If we ignore them, then we can convince ourselves that we already understand everything -- and by doing that, a complete theory of everything that actually works will forever elude us.
The existence of the interstellar magnetic field has been characterized by the Voyager probes. We really only have two options for explaining it: ignore laboratory plasma physics and Maxwell's Equations, and argue that it was created billions of years ago, and has not changed since. Or, we can argue with laboratory plasma physics and Maxwell's Equations that magnetic and electric fields are the inseparable result of electric currents over plasmas. In a sense, the decision has already been made by the mainstream astrophysicists for the former. But they will inevitably regret this decision as the evidence for the proliferation of electrical plasmas and double layers in space is becoming quite overwhelming. Hannes Alfven's warning will soon ring prophetic and the interpretive sciences will be thrown into chaos. I know how to make it happen.
The collapsed lava tube explanation is frequently invoked, but is unfortunately not supported much by the evidence. The debris from the collapse is frequently missing. Similarly, when mainstream astrophysicists infer the movement of this material with fluids, they oftentimes ignore the absence of an outflow at the end of the rille.
...
8 31667
Have you investigated the Aristarchus and Tycho craters on the Moon? Those rays that come off of Tycho are not debris, but rather burn scars. It's also worth noting that this debris oftentimes lines up in a perfect line.
For Aristarchus, the supposed debris field is in fact excavated material.
As far as cometary craters are concerned, many of these craters have terraced edges, as if the force that created them was rotating as it dug into the ground (as a Birkeland Current does within the laboratory). Many of the enigmatic central peaks of craters exhibit stratigraphy. How would this stratigraphy survive a melting and re-solidification process?
It's worth mentioning that NASA has had great difficulty in understanding the Deep Impact mission results -- results which were accurately predicted by Wallace Thornhill almost in their entirety, including the fact that two flashes would be observed -- a prediction that nobody expected. It's really interesting because his prediction was ridiculed on the Slashdot forums before it was demonstrated to be true
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=248651&cid=19
To my knowledge, there was never a follow-up Slashdot story that mentioned that the prediction was accurate -- as if accurate predictions no longer have any value within astrophysics. If we ignore anomalies and accurate predictions, and augment that with a massive public relations machine, it would be a simple matter to convince ourselves of things that are not necessarily true.
The OH coming off of comets, which is used to justify the belief that comets are dirty snowballs, can also be created by the simple combination of hydrogen protons from the solar wind and oxygen atoms electrically machined from surface cometary silicates. Considering that cometary comas can extend something like 1 million miles in diameter, NASA would be wise to consider that it is far more likely that the coma is an electrical phenomenon rather than a chemical one. They obviously refuse to do so because that would imply that there is a weak electric field centered at the Sun.
There is no shortage of anomalies within mainstream science today. It is very dangerous for mainstream astrophysicists to ignore the ones that they cannot adequately explain because they will eventually be exposed for doing this. Listen to these prophetic words carefully: If Michael Moore did a film on astrophysics, he would rip the whole field to shreds, and all of science would be turned upside down. It is just a matter of time before this happens.
People around here take BB Theory *very* seriously. In fact, most people around here perceive BB to be more than just a theory. It is considered to be fact. They achieve this level of certainty, however, only by disregarding vast numbers of anomalous observations and many apparent technical contradictions. Eric J Lerner goes into some detail on these contradictions at http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/, but people would be very wise to leave complex discussions of BB Theory to the astrophysicists. It's generally a lose-lose proposition for any layman to become involved in these debates. The contradictions tend to be so complicated that only BB experts and degreed astrophysicists can truly understand what threat they pose. For this reason, it can be virtually impossible to have a calm, dignified discussion about BB Theory with a BB advocate because they will typically use complex mathematics to demonstrate that the theory could still be true in spite of some apparent contradiction. But they will oftentimes in these arguments completely leave out any information related to the likelihood of the explanations they offer (perhaps in some cases because they don't even know), and they'll do their best to ridicule anybody who does not possess their own mathematical pedigree. It's not considered worth their time to explain this complex mathematical theory to people who have not been trained exactly like themselves -- which begs an important question: what if their training is somehow wrong? This is, after all, still an interpretive science. If you have to spend four years studying physics and astrophysics in order to evaluate BB Theory, then this rasises the second legitimate question: if the theory has so many apparent contradictions, why would any reasonable, objective person consider spending 5% of their lifetime learning it?
The truth is, I believe, that we can evaluate the mainstream theories without actually learning every single detail about them, through case studies. There are many instances where we can just use our eyes to discount their math. We can quite easily observe, for instance, that there are numerous rilles (canyons) on the rocky planets that move both up and down with the terrain of the planets. Furthermore, we can observe that these rilles will occasionally break up into chains of craters, and that craters are oftentimes associated with rilles. This is a very important observation that anybody can validate for themselves without an advanced mathematical degree, because it suggests that plasmas in space are electrical in nature, and that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge over electrical plasmas (as we can see plasmas doing in the laboratory). Amazingly, BB Theory has no ability to explain these anomalous rilles because it does not allow that electrical plasmas are doing anything of any significance within space. Mainstream astrophysicists just ignore them, as if they just don't exist, oblivious to the fact that whatever created them couldn't care less for gravity.
The worrisome thing to me is that it appears that the mere existence of mathematical proofs appears to increasingly be used as proof that it is true. Logic and reason, on the other hand, are increasingly considered somehow less adequate for understanding our surroundings. When observations appear anomalous, as with Halton Arp's high redshift quasars in front of low redshift spiral galaxies, we're told that our eyes are being deceived. Even when his statistics have been validated by a third party, his results continue to be ignored because they do not support BB Theory. Traditionally, math has been used as a mechanism for characterizing a theory that is probable and that abides by Occam's Razor. But now, the math has become the proof itself, when it's convenient, and without consideration for the likelihood that it even represents reality.
I could be wrong, but this person is probably referring to a frozen-in-place magnetic field -- an entity which is asserted to exist in space, but which we do not observe within laboratory plasma physics -- and a concept which Hannes Alfven termed "pseudo-pedagogical" in his Nobel Physics Prize acceptance speech for MHD. The frozen-in-place concept, I presume, would allow you and others to explain magnetic fields in terms of inflation, as if they have not been changing this whole time. This would also allow you to also assert that their existence is not the result of currents flowing over the plasmas -- which I believe is a violation of Maxwell's Laws.
Also, there is a surprisingly (and somewhat rare these days) honest assessment of the problems of the CMB here:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.246
NewScientist Article:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12241-pub
Additional Background info here, linked to from that article:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.
Compare this to the Space.com - AP Article:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070711_ap_o
For whatever reason, the article that Space.com decided to go with fails to mention anything about this project representing a threat to mainstream cosmology or the CMB. Astrophysical enthusiasts reading Space.com, in other words, would not be informed by that article that somebody has even alleged that there is a possible anomalous artifact within the cosmic microwave background. I'm not advocating anything here other than that this appears to be more than a mere "dumbing down" of a complicated story. They could have easily dumbed down the concept of aligned galaxies and why that introduces a problem for the CMB. Instead, we got the following, which appears to not suggest any threat level to BB Theory whatsoever:
This sort of "damage control", if I may call it that, is not really very helpful when it comes to layman trying to understand what to believe.
We must be very careful of how we promote certain sceintific theories over others. It would be very easy to create a false consensus within society using public relations in this way.
NASA would be wise to also carefully contemplate what is inducing the dust to rise to form dust storms in the first place. They already have access to THEMIS images from the Mars Odyssey Mission that suggest that there is filamentation of Martian dust storms at both the leading and trailing edges. For a sample image (there are others too), go to:
t devils.htm
n adoes/insidetheeye.shtml
r ge_sheath_vortex_basics_for_tornado.html
0 06%20%203/sprite2006.3.13.html
P RITE/galleryhome.html
P RITE/Carrot/gscar01.html
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20060512a
Furthermore, we also know that Martian dust devils can contain lightning bolts at their cores:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14jul_dus
In addition to that, we also know that firsthand accounts from people who have seen the inside of a tornado and lived to tell about it indicate that tornadoes here on Earth tend to shimmer like a fluorescent light from the inside. This is typically obstructed from the outside by dust. There's a brief mention here. I'm sure there are other sources for this information:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/tor
This could indicate that tornadoes and Martian dust devils are actually both electrical plasmas, and that the electrical activity is inducing the vortex -- not the other way around.
It is possible that vortexes are the natural result of the right-hand rule within electrodynamics. Peter Thomson's Charge Sheath Vortex site is an excellent tutorial on how this may be so:
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Cha
He demonstrates his point at the end by creating a miniature vortex using electricity in a petri dish.
My point here is that NASA should seriously consider that the Martian dust is molecularly bipolar and is responding to solar and other electrical plasmas that are affecting the Martian planet. The evidence from both Mars and Earth suggests that it is a possibility.
We already know for a fact that upper atmosphere lightning exists. The weather scientists told us that this was not possible, and they were proven to be wrong. It's now easy to find pictures of upper-atmosphere sprites on the web. Try these:
http://usjma.jp/~sprite/sprite2005.11pic.html
http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Sprite%202006/S%202
http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20S
http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20S
So, why isn't it possible that they could also be wrong about current theories about tornadoes? And why in the world are those dust storms filamentary? When we see enigmatic features on Mars, we should create future missions to follow that data. As of recently, NASA has been exclusively following their script instead of the anomalies. We need to be doing both.
Planets and stars share a common morphology that mainstream astrophysicists are not paying attention to. The equatorial torus and polar jets are common to all objects in space within EU Theory. They just differ in strength depending upon the current density moving through that object as well as, among other things, from the perspective of the ground, the atmospheric thickness of the body. Mars clearly has less atmosphere than the Earth, so one should expect that its polar regions would be far more dangerous than the rest of the planet. We see quite a bit of evidence for this, in fact, on Mars' South Pole. If we send people there to investigate the "geysers", Martian spiders or ice cap, NASA may run into serious problems.
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.
It's unfortunately a common example for people to use here on Slashdot, and bringing it up leads people to believe that EU Theory isn't real science. I wanted to make sure that you realized that EU Theory is based upon laboratory plasma physics. In fact, the mainstream astrophysicists are the ones asserting that the laboratory plasma results do not scale or apply to the bigger universe -- which, under any other circumstances, people would recognize as being completely absurd. Their entire theory of magnetic reconnection, which presumably explains how the Sun's corona can be 100x hotter than its surface (!), is redundant of *real* laboratory plasma physics. They refuse to accept double layers on the Sun, however, because double layers are the result of electrical current. This battle has been raging for many years now. The guy (Hannes Alfven) who created magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), the math used to model plasmas in space as having frozen-in-place magnetic fields and as being ideal conductors, denounced his own prior convictions regarding these fluid modeling concepts as "pseudo-pedagogical" (his words) during his Nobel Physics Prize for inventing that field in 1970. Not many astrophysicists are even aware of that because his warnings were completely ignored.
Quite a bit of evidence has already been provided to the public. Very few people are paying attention. NASA and the astrophysicists have a nasty habit of not promoting results which they do not understand. They did this for the Deep Impact mission, which should have been the point where they realized that comets are electrical in nature. They keep on pointing to the streams of OH they see coming off of the comets as evidence of water even though they cannot see water on the comet's surface, and even though OH can quite easily be generated by combining the solar wind's protons with oxygen released from cometary silicates through electric machining. There is a long history of data regarding Venus that indicates that it is a *new* planet, still cooling off from its recent birth. We've seen both radioactive and heat signatures that suggest as much. The story of the extinction of the woolly mammoth is a very fascinating in-depth study of how mainstream science glosses over enigmatic findings. One Russian scientist has discovered that radioactive decay rates correlate with phases of the Moon, Sun and stars. His research was never followed up on. Halton Arp has discovered a correlation between quasars and the axes of nearby spiral galaxies, and his stats *have* been reproduced. He's also imaged high redshift quasars in *front* of low-redshift spiral galaxies and attached to low-redshift spiral galaxies. But his reward was that he lost his telescope time and had to move to Europe to continue his work. The very fact that the Sun's solar wind continues to accelerate even as it passes the planets is highly enigmatic for the standard solar model. What mechanical force induces a sustained acceleration of charged particles over millions of miles? We see jets all over the universe now that span light years in length. That is far longer than the lifetime of a photon, so these are undeniably jets of *matter*. The only way to keep a jet of matter together in space is if it's a spinning vortex, and the *only* way that you can do this is with an electrical plasma. Plasma physicists -- namely Anthony Perratt -- can generate the spiral galaxy morphology with nothing more than electrical plasmas. No dark matter is required. It is the natural evolution of two adjacent Birkeland Currents. Mainstream astrophysicists have to resort to collisions to induce spiral galaxies, and by their own accounts, collisions should be *extremely* rare. Don Scott's book, "The Electric Sky", is a stunni