Cosmology is not stellar evolution nor stellar models so what are you trying to say?
You know, in plasma cosmology, the theories associated with the creation and sustenance of stars cannot be so easily picked apart from the cosmology itself. Within plasma cosmology, stars form as a natural byproduct of electrical plasma behavior that we observe within the laboratory. The continued operation of the star is then subsequently a function of the star's plasma surroundings. Within plasma cosmology, there is no stellar ageing. I've received irrelevant criticism on the semantics of the situation like this for quite a while now. But you're so pseudo-skeptical of anything against the mainstream that you're not even reading my text properly. Try reading the quote more carefully and you'll notice that you're nitpicking.
Are you alleging that there are no electric fields in space that might be accelerating charged particles?
Can you propose a mechanism for star formation that would give the sun a sufficiently large positive charge to accelerate ions at large distances? That voltage difference had to come from somewhere, and large charge imbalances counteract the gravitational attraction needed for nuclear fusion.
It sounds as if you're asking me to explain what a z-pinch is. There are plenty of plasma physics textbooks that do as much. One of the EU Theory advocates in fact, Anthony Perratt, wrote his own such plasma physics textbook.
You appear to be acting as if there are no problems with the standard solar model when in fact there remain issues related to some very fundamental observations of the Sun:
- The apparent anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrinos - The acceleration of the solar wind, which continues even as it passes the planets - The inverse temperature problem associated with the corona
We still do not know what is happening within the Sun's interior. People appear to easily forget the problems that the oxygen ratio crisis posed for helioseismology.
Maybe I'm wasting my time. It seems clear that "alternative cosmologies" means the electric universe theory, which doesn't make any useful, testable predictions.
At least none that you'd be interested in reading about, eh?
You know, those guys are making predictions all of the time, some more impressive than others. The most interesting was Wallace Thornhill's Deep Impact predictions, which turned out to largely be true. Of the numerous predictions made about that mission that came true was the specific prediction that the contact would involve two separate flashes. This is important and relevant to this discussion because it demonstrated support for the idea that bodies in space can acquire charge density from deep space that differs from the typical charge density near the Sun. The pre-impact flash was in fact a charge neutralization between the impactor and comet Tempel 1's plasma sphere. But, of course, the mainstream alleges that the second flash was in fact a "post-impact" flash. The only problem is that, in order for that to be true, the object would have had to travel an amazing distance into the comet, which the light would have then had to subsequently escape through.
But, while we're talking about predictions, I recommend that you pay close attention to Enceladus. The hot spots on Enceladus offer convincing proof that space plasmas can become highly electrical. Attempts to explain away the observations using mainstream theories will become increasingly absurd as the quality of observations increases.
What's particularly disturbing to me though is the fact that you surely realize that the technology to identify electrical plasmas in space did not even exist until the last couple of decades. Mainstream advocates like to pretend that everybody had an equal head start as this tends to minimize the historical fact that consensus solidified on the mainstream theories before synchrotron radiation could even be detected in space.
By thoroughly debunked, are you referring to Tim Thompson? There exists a rejoinder to his assertions which has yet to be responded to by anybody at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm. By the way, Tim Thompson is well known for just throwing up a bunch of garbage to see what will stick. For instance, his assertion that the various Venus albedo values should be averaged in spite of the fact that some of the values were created in the late 1800's is a prime example. Even to this day, people continue to believe that he was victorious in those exchanges even though an unbiased review of the details demonstrates that Taylor did nothing more than repackage his assumption of Venus in thermal equilibrium into the conclusion. What's particularly unusual about that situation is that the wikipedia censors will not even allow mention of this fact onto wikipedia as they interpret the whole situation as you do without actually looking at ad thinking about the references that are being discussed.
Or perhaps you are talking about attempts to argue EU Theory on the Bad Astronomy Forum, as if these forums are not structured and wholly intended to defend the mainstream theories. On that forum, simplistic calculations are sufficient reason to discredit entire theories. People made a big deal, for instance, of the calculations that supposedly demonstrated that there was not enough charged particles to power the Sun. The problem is that the details of the solar wind's structure continue to reveal itself to be filamentary, and demonstrate that such calculations are now rather antiquated.
For the benefit of everybody, you should clarify exactly which attempt to debunk EU Theory you are referring to.
The study cannot absolutely confirm the origin of cosmic rays unless it considers all possible cosmological theories. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that within conventional stellar theory, supernovae can account for the high energies necessary. But within other stellar models -- like in plasma-oriented cosmologies -- it is not so difficult to achieve the necessary energy levels.
For instance, a relatively low density plasma can support a weak electric field. Consistent with this, a low amplitude (positive) electric field can extend from the Sun's corona. This would result from the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space beyond the heliopause. One can make a good case that the outward force on positive ions due to this electric field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.
It's interesting that astrophysicists would propose that supernovae are the only mechanism for accelerating cosmic rays when they have yet to establish a believable mechanism within their own models for how the solar wind continues to be accelerated even as it passes the planets. The notion that cosmic rays are in fact the solar winds of other larger stars, whose electric fields would dwarf our own Sun's electric field, is only dismissed because it is irrelevant to the popular models. But by not considering such possibilities within a fair framework of alternative cosmologies, the mainstream astrophysicists fail to take advantage of an opportunity to rigorously compare and contrast the various stellar models. What we get instead is a consideration of only a limited set of possibilities to begin with based upon a dramatic assumption that the current stellar theories are without fault. This constrained set of possibilities improves our understanding of the popular theories, but it would be false to assert that this selective consideration of possibilities is rigorous.
I'm unfortunately unable to find the paper. It's out there. I've written about it before in one of my prior Slashdot interactions.
In the past four decades observations have provided overwhelming evidence that the redshifts of quasars are cosmological, not due to any type of velocity redshift due to ejection from a galaxy. Unfortunately, armchair astronomers continue to spread long discredited theories as the truth.
It would probably be proper to place a bold asterisk next to "discredited". There remain strong arguments for many things in cosmology, astrophysics, archaeology, geology, meteorology, subatomic physics and solar physics, as well as the interpretation of ancient historical documents and stories. None of these alternative theories are being taken seriously enough to be properly discredited. In many cases, evidence is trending in the direction opposite of mainstream. I would point as a clear case in point the announcement this week that uranium isotopes are not invariant. If that finding had occurred 40 years ago, science might have gone a completely different direction.
The problem of taking such a strong stance as your own in favor of the mainstream theories to the detriment of your own knowledge of heretical ideas is that you do not see that a common thread weaves its way through many of the most recent findings in seemingly unrelated disciplines. I recommend that you spread yourself out a little bit more in terms of reading material. You will start noticing things that you were previously oblivious to. Not everything popular, it turns out, is necessarily true. But you shouldn't have needed me to tell you that. Over time, it is inevitable that some ideas that are currently fringe will turn out to be correct. I don't think you even need to take a philosophy of science class to realize that. Just learning about a few instances of it in the past should be sufficient.
For instance, it was strenuously believed for many years that electricity and magnetism were unrelated. The connection wasn't discovered for 20 years after compasses became commonplace because it was just "common sense" back then that the two were separate "fluids". I respect people who have a lot of technical information, but many times, these people fail to objectively educate themselves on the philosophical and historical details -- as if that context for their skills is unnecessary. Part of this education involves at least properly grasping what is being said by the heretics to a level such that you can make a qualitative judgment for yourself for each new observation in terms of *both* models. If you make no effort to do this, then you will certainly eventually be wrong because science sometimes takes unexpected turns.
I can't be all that confused with respect to Arp because I'm at least aware that he's arguing that quasars possess *intrinsic* redshift. The extra redshift is not due to velocity from ejection, but rather exists as an apparent property of the matter itself. Arp proposes the explanation that redshift has an age component to it, which is one possible way to explain why the inherent redshift value (not the raw value, btw) appears to decrease in quantized fashion as the objects move away from the galaxies.
The argument that 40 years of time somehow changes all of this is nonsense. His images of filamentary bridges do not expire.
We should expect that mainstream astrophysicists will continue to develop their theories. All of the physical mechanisms necessary to explain away all of the enigmatic observations they've encountered over time are now sufficient to make the mainstream theories essentially unfalsifiable.
Seeing unusual galactic rotation curves? That's dark matter.
Got high redshift objects associated with low redshift objects? That's gravitational lensing.
Not getting all of the galactic shadows necessary to demonstrate that the CMB is at the edge of space? That's dark energy.
IANAAP, my point was just that anyone who has experienced vertigo or seen an optical illusion will know that you can't trust your brain to interpret visual data pertaining to things very large or small, very distant, or in some other way outside the range of experiences we encountered while evolving. I'm not saying our visual interpretation of such things is necessarily wrong, just that we shouldn't have a lot of confidence in it.
The problem occurs when tricks of the eye become a necessary theoretical mechanism for minimizing the impact of observations that are enigmatic to the popular theories. What you will oftentimes find, for instance, is that many claims of gravitational lensing are in fact attempts to explain away observations of high redshift objects and filaments near lower redshift objects. There is much eagerness to resort to such theories when the enigmatic objects pose a threat to the mainstream theories, but far less enthusiasm for ensuring that lensing is occurring for objects where it should also be occurring. See for yourself...
Astrophysical Evidence shows Profound Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Physics have been misapplied to Current Concepts of Gravitational Lensing
Also, many people do not realize that lensing requires an extraordinary amount of matter. Many times, normal baryonic matter only constitutes a small portion of this required matter. Non-baryonic matter thus becomes a fudge factor that fills in the required mass.
These issues are important because in addition to considering that our eyes are being tricked by things like lensing, and in addition to considering that quasars are metaphysically bright objects at the edge of space, we should also consider that perhaps redshift is simply not always merely representative of distance. When images appear to demonstrate as much, we should never allow ourselves to completely rule the idea out (which is pretty much what is happening right now).
The consensuses you speak of -- dark matter, dark energy, the Hubble Constant, the expansion of the universe -- are no more physical than laboratory experimentation, the fossil record or eyewitness accounts. And yet, you appear to be unaware that all three contradict these consensuses. Like others, you err when you lower your standard to what is most popular and commonly taught in school, and then you fill the void you created for yourself by limiting your own reading materials with the idea that that it can only happen by conspiracy. But then, if you never read enough of the alternative cosmologies to actually formulate a meaningful opinion of them, like 99% of the others on this forum, then why is a conspiracy even necessary? Do you not see that it is your own collective decision to not take other cosmologies seriously that is the cause of the misunderstanding? If people are convinced that we are on the verge of understanding the universe, then why would they investigate any alternative models? This is more than sufficient as an explanation for why astrophysics has become a meaningless thought experiment.
Explain to me why electrical plasmas in the dark mode are *not* dark matter, and we can count together the number of assumptions you had to make to get to that point.
I've read quotes from the scientists writing the textbooks on supernovae that the physics of supernovae within textbooks are only best guesses. And yet, an entire theory of expansion has been based upon this speculation.
You act as if the Astrophysical Journal is some completely altruistic journal, free of any politics. You ignore the fact that Arp's paper was outright dismissed when first submitted because it was reviewed by Chandrasekhar. Is this not even slightly improper for you?
You appear to not realize that there is a very long history of scientists dismissing the idea that space plasmas can be electrical, all the way back to the time when Sydney Chapman refused to even look at Kristian Birkeland's terrella in operation. Many years after it finally became accepted that the aurora is created by electrical currents in space generated by the Sun, Chapman still continued to criticize Birkeland's work. Why would things have changed?
Many astrophysicists do not even realize that Hannes Alfven pleaded with scientists to drop the frozen-in magnetic field concept during his Nobel Physics acceptance speech (the prize being given for magnetohydrodynamics, of course). It's simply not something that is taught, and no conspiracy is needed to explain it whatsoever.
I'm quite sure that you are completely unaware that both alligator and coral reef fossils have been found at *all* latitudes of the Earth for multiple periods of time. People are so quick to explain away such findings (which even Lyell confirmed were highly enigmatic) that they do not investigate it enough to realize that moving poles or continents cannot fully explain it. And yet, we see other planets in our own solar system where the temperature is rather uniform, and even warmer at the poles. Even better, most of you guys consider the concept of the Garden of Eden as a religious concept, completely unaware that numerous cultures of all types refer to the time before farming using the same exact details.
Please tell me: what is it about the *assumption* of uniformitarianism that you find so compelling? Is it absolute dating? Have you actually read about any of the studies of dating techniques that demonstrated that the method is systemically flawed? How about this...
"The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results," wrote R. E. Lee. "There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected." - R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, 19 (1981), p. 27
According to R. Stuchenrath, whom Lee cites, the "whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy and it all depend
Your eyes and brain did not evolve to observe cosmic phenomena.
No, they evolved to feed us and multiply -- which by your own reasoning might suggest that you and I should not even be interacting on this forum right now. Arguments that minimize the adaptability of the human brain are antithetical to common sense.
The truth is that your brain is searching for reasons to convince itself of the position that it has already decided to take: that the mainstream theories are correct. What would be more convincing is if you actually realized this, and then started compensating for it by investigating various heretical views in science, attempting to actually either prove or disprove them in at least a semi-objective manner. What most people do though is to just dismiss things as their system of belief's preferences and prejudices demand. Halton Arp is the classic example of this because his gallery of peculiar galaxies demands at least a reasonable discussion within the astrophysical community. The mathematics of the situation can never completely dismiss the images that he presents. The only reason that the math takes priority for most people is because common sense has lost its value within astrophysics as increasingly complex and unphysical phenomenon are postulated. People have become convinced that the mathematics is more physical than the images that we take of space, but they only get away with this because these things are fairly distant. As you get closer in time and space, the theories become more "normal" for the brain to handle. Astrophysicists can play in the playground of their choosing for the sole reason that our surroundings are not currently hostile, and haven't been for a while now. But, it's short-sighted to conclude that it will always be so. Humans are not proliferating because of the successes of our astrophysical theories of deep space. We are here simply because those forces in deep space have stayed in deep space. The mainstream theories postulate that it will largely stay this way, but alternative cosmologies that involve the electrical nature of plasmas make no such promises. It appears that we've opted for the cosmology that presents the least threat to ourselves. Do you believe that this is completely by chance?
If we're observing that deep space is different from our immediate surroundings, then it would make sense to investigate why this might be so within the context of plasmas, which constitute virtually all of space's visible matter. What we observe with plasmas is that we have few of them here on Earth, and then once you get to the ionosphere, it's all plasmas nearly 100% of the time until you get to the next planet or asteroid. A reasonable person would realize that this is likely the point at which our own immediate physical reality becomes disjointed from the unusual things we observe in deep space. Sure, our local solar system also appears to follow standard fluid-like equations, but plasmas do not *have* to behave like that. They can become electrical within the laboratory, and no assumption regarding quasi-neutrality can ever negate that physical experimental fact, which we have observed within the laboratory and which we use in numerous consumer electronics.
That more people do not realize this is rather surreal. But, there appears to be very little desire for real introspection when it comes to the mainstream theories. It appears more like a frenzy to get media coverage by one-upping the man before you. Common sense lacks the glamour.
The real question is whether or not you and others would believe *any* study that demonstrates that objects can have inherent redshift. The typical argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is being misinterpreted to mean that no single piece of evidence can overturn the entire body of mathematical conjecture and observational interpretations associated with the popular theories. What people fail to realize is that there are indeed alternative cosmologies that can facilitate observations like Arp's, where speculation is not so rampant as to preclude multiple components to raw redshift values. But, by not considering those alternative cosmologies, it becomes easier for people to imagine that Arp's math is just wrong and that his observations are just "chance". This is nothing more than explaining away an inconvenient observation.
Arp derived his conclusions from outdated data. We are now seeing that the ratio of galaxies with supermassive black holes vs without far exceeds our expectations and furthermore, that the early universe harbored far more than expected.
There is a more recent study out there with an updated dataset, and it supports his conclusions. The thing is, nobody cares.
One tangible strike against Arp's intrinsic redshift theory came in the form of direct evidence that a supermassive black hole exists in the center of the milkyway and yet seems to cause none of the redshift that Arp would expect.
Arp argues that redshift is more an indication of an object's age than its distance, so I fail to see how the effect would be noticed with the core of our own galaxy. Only new objects -- the quasars being ejected from the supposed black holes -- would have a high redshift.
This is hardly convincing logic though. The Sombrero Galaxy does not gravitationally lens either, even though it should. The mainstream theories have many problems of their own. But it is the only set of theories we teach to astrophysics students, so they are quite partial to it. People essentially decide to believe that redshift equals distance when they decide to go to school to learn astrophysics.
I hope you are joking. Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative resource for controversial subjects. You need to get into the habit of making a distinction. If there is a heated debate about something, you will only get the mainstream view of it from wiki. Hopefully, there is no debate about this...
Wikipedia used to cite a paper that attempted to disprove Arp's observation of quantized inherent redshift. The thing is, the authors were not even aware that Arp's quantized redshifts were components of the total redshift. The authors disproved that the *raw* values were quantized. Apparently, so long as it is popular and disproves a heretic, accuracy is not all that important on wiki.
As for the citation, it will not matter one bit. People will believe what they *want* to believe, and people *want* to believe that the statistics are flawed.
Stick to believing math. Your eyes lie. If you can show math lying, you'll have a place in history.
It's not the eyes that lie. It's the brain. The brain wants things. It has preferences for and prejudices against theories. Our brains convince us what to believe by restricting our exposure to information. If something threatens our preferences or prejudices, we will refuse to let our eyes see it. So, in truth, the eyes are innocent bystanders.
Many things that are real, natural and true can seem strange to our brains, and many things that seem normal to us will never in fact occur in nature. Nature has no such preferences or prejudices. It just is.
Halton Arp discovered that quasars are in fact observed to be connected to or being ejected from spiral galaxies. Even though the mainstream theories badly need these objects to exist at the edge of space due to their high redshifts, more recent statistics demonstrate that Arp is probably right, and that redshift is not strictly an indication of distance.
But the fact that there is any debate at all on it is rather silly. People can observe the images that Arp discusses and decide for themselves whether or not he is right. The real question is whether or not you believe somebody's math over your own eyes.
It appears that you are dismissing my points without actually considering them. You state:
Your reference on Venus seems unaware of 30 years of data from probes that have actually reached Venus.
I previously stated in my notes that...
In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed infrared fluxes which conformed with mainstream theories; as the probes descended, however, all began to show very large net fluxes UPWARDS
You mislead when you state that there have been landers since the four I mention. There have in fact been none. They were the last landers.
The esa Venus Express probe data shows the crust to be very old
I'm curious to hear on what readings or logic this is based upon. Please go on...
As well, you reference and tend to reference long outdated and disproved ideas
That's unfortunately a symptom of a much larger problem -- that mainstream science has developed consensuses on many scientific questions prematurely. After all, and for the sake of the record (for the "foolish kids" out there) astrophysicists did not even possess the instrumentation necessary to identify synchrotron radiation (which can indicate double layers within space plasmas) within the sky until recently -- numerous decades after it was decided that the Big Bang Theory would become the only theory taught to students. The question of the dominant cosmology was decided *decades* before it was even possible to rule out the idea that space plasmas might be electrical. Now that we can see synchrotron radiation all over the place, suggesting the possibility that double layers may in fact be common and presenting the uncomfortable possibility that quasi-neutrality may in fact be violated quite commonly, it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the current cosmology was arrived at "by rigorously gathering data and performing experiments."
By the way, a cult is a group of people who believe things in *spite* of evidence. Perhaps you might be interested in doing some reading about cults...
I am not a rogue element, as you seem to suggest. I am merely an advocate that is associated with a group of scientists. Are you alleging that the 100 or so scientists that I work with are all psychopathic and that we are a cult for believing data that you refuse to consider? Why would we go to so much effort to be scorned by society?
Your notes mean nothing, Venus is not new. It actually has an older crust than the earth.
What is this based upon? You appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are numerous enigmatic data points related to Venus. Check it out...
You are snared in thinking one way, and because of that believe everyone else is snared in thinking one way that is wrong while your own is correct somehow.
No, I understand the basic arguments associated with both the mainstream theories and this one, and I can clearly see that EU Theory is closer to the truth. When I'm presented with images of high redshift quasars in front of and connected to low redshift spiral galaxies, I do not immediately assume that my eyes are being tricked in some way. I do not automatically consider any mathematics (like gravitational lensing) to take precedence over my own vision. I am equally skeptical of all theories. If I saw something that proved EU Theory to be wrong, I'd drop it tomorrow and move on to something else because I have no desire to believe anything that I do not think is true. EU Theory may not be as quantified as the mainstream theories, but this has nothing to do with how true it is. We can quantify many things in the universe that are complete bullshit. Mathematics has no monopoly on truth. It is just a technique for identifying truth, but it can be just as easily used to convince people of things that are not true.
Stop this, unless you are simply psychopathic and then I can say nothing to you.
Why in the world do you care what I believe? Why is it important to you that I think like you? Why are you so concerned that I might be sparking conversations regarding a theory that you do not agree with? How can you be so confident yourself that you are right? What evidence proves for you so conclusively that the more popular theories are true? Please tell.
It's predictable that you would bring up Velikovsky. My guess though is that you, like the rest of the scientific community, have never actually dug into the details of what Carl Sagan said about Velikovsky's theories enough to realize that Sagan was not averse to repeatedly contradicting his own published works so long as it discredited Velikovsky. For most people, it's sufficient for you to just say the name "Velikovsky" and elicit howls -- and you guys are content with the depth of those howls as some sort of proof that the guy was crazy. Velikovsky and the Catastrophist movement said many things, many of which were not adopted by the EU Theorists. But two things that they stated, and which have proven to be quite true, is that (1) Venus is a new planet, and (2) dating techniques are fairly worthless. Absolute dating is total and complete junk science. There is much research to suggest the latter (research which I'm sure you never even thought to investigate or look for), and the former is testified to by all of the ancient cultures of the world as well as the four probes that were sent there. It was the decision of NASA to ignore the results of those probes, even though they all agreed that the planet was not in thermal equilibrium and that the heat was originating from the planet's surface.
From my own research notes on Venus' albedo...
Four separate probes landed on the surface of Venus and all four of these probes generated data that indicated that Venus is emitting significantly more energy than it is receiving. Three small probes carried net flux radiometers carried externally, and a larger probe carried an infrared radiometer internally, which viewed the atmosphere through a window. All of these instruments measured the infrared flux of the Venereal atmosphere. In the upper atmosphere, all of these instruments showed infrared fluxes which conformed with mainstream theories; as the probes descended, however, all began to show very large net fluxes UPWARDS, which is what you might expect if Velikovsky's view of Venus was the correct one. Rather than accept that four different probes carrying two different types of flux radiometers might be relaying legitimate data that all appeared to correlate with one another, mainstream astrophysicists opted to believe that all four instruments were faulty and all four sets of data were erroneous. Scientists analyzing the data opted to favor popular theories and calculations about Venus' heat over every single piece of directly observed data ever returned from these landers:
(Based on two articles from Icarus magazine dated 1982 and 1985, the first by H.E. Revercomb, L.A. Sromovsky, and V.E. Suomi of the Space Science and Engineering Center, Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, the second by the same three gentlemen along with R.W. Boese of NASA-Ames (Icarus 52, 279-300 and Icarus 61, 521-538)
"Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux measurements appear to be affected by serious errors..."
"... Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument] measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by 1982 three years after the fact]... Thus we cannot at this time make use of the LIR results..."
They were less apprehensive about force-fitting the data from the three smaller probes to more acceptable theories that would confirm Sagan's greenhouse theory:
"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of CO2."
In discussions of this data, scientists now typically claim that Venus is "within error bounds of thermal equilibrium" and cite the n
I agree that what's happening is rather unexpected and strange. People have been thinking that the theory of everything is elusive because it is horribly complex, as if doing just a little bit more of the same will eventually get us there. And so, physics has become a senseless, multi-billion dollar race to create the biggest collider, while scientists who have made significant progress in the field of aether models cannot scrounge together enough money to construct a small laboratory. So, the astrophysicists have broken their field up into a million specialties, never taking care to make sure that all of the disciplines are maintaining strong communications with one another. They then, intentionally or not, created a hierarchical system whereby astrophysics became essentially the queen of the sciences. Astrophysicists would essentially dictate to the other sciences what is real and not, ignorant of the fact that many astrophysicists have never stepped inside of a laboratory. They populated their hierarchy with mathematicians of all virtually identical pedigree and very little variance of education or even viewpoint. They failed to ever train the astrophysicists in school how to contrast and compare cosmological models, instead focusing explicitly upon one single model, completely ignoring all of the ramifications of invariance in education. Learning one model induces memorization; thinking doesn't start until you teach somebody two competing theories.
What will be one of the most startling discoveries of the 21st century will be the realization that pseudo-skepticism itself -- this idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof -- has acted as the true obstacle to discovering the theory of everything. It's the confidence that scientists are just a hair's length away from some ultimate truth that blinds them to the fact that they are in fact quite far off, because they do not even include within the set of possibilities the most important line of research -- that plasmas are electrical. If you go back in history, you will see that this prejudice against electricity in space has existed since the time that Kristian Birkeland tried to show his terrella experiment to Sydney Chapman. Birkeland believed that it was the Sun that was creating the aurora, and he made an experiment to demonstrate as much. By firing charged particles at an iron ball, he recreated the aurora. Chapman was convinced that the Earth was creating its own aurora, and he refused to even look at Birkeland's experiment or give due credit to Birkeland even years after Birkland's theories became accepted. The same sort of thing is happening right now. There are clues all over the freakin place if you can suspend your pseudo-skepticism just long enough to believe that perhaps we are not on the right track. There are a couple of people who have actually already demonstrated to the public anti-gravitation experiments, and these demonstrations make sense within some aether models. Yet, there is no interest in looking into them because since they do not validate the current models, people do not believe that they are possible.
This extreme pseudo-skepticism amongst the public and within our fields of sciences completely ignore the fact that science is not always a forged path. When people discovered the inverse temperature relationship for the Sun's corona, the constant acceleration of the solar wind and then subsequently the apparent anticorrelation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation, this should have been sufficient alone to suspect that the Sun is an electrical device. But it is the weight of belief that rules the day. Not only do the scientists want to find a theory of everything, but they want to also demonstrate that the universe is as they thought it was! Nature will have none of it.
The primary impediment to the theory of everything is our own unwillingness to toss aside our preferences for a theory of everything. In order to gain the most desirable knowledge known to man, we have to toss a
I've never done any work on wikipedia, but I do know Ian Tresman, who has arguably wasted a good portion of his life just trying to create a wikipedia entry for Electric Universe Theory.
I'm not at all repressed. I'm merely trying to provide information to people who are willing to listen because I've been reading about EU Theory for more than a year now, and I realize that there is legitimacy to what they're saying (this is actually somewhat of an understatement). To be honest, I find the whole situation quite absurd. The way I see it, many people on this board prefer categorization and ad hominem attacks over critical, objective thinking. I mean, what is really the issue here? Why are people so hostile to EU Theory? From what I can tell, it's partly because people have allowed themselves to develop preferences for the popular theories. People *like* the ideas of black holes, warped space-time, wormholes and the concept of numerous multiple dimensions. There is no realization that this is a very bad thing, even though many famous scientists of the past have warned against it.
It's also partly because EU Theory advocates are not traditionally educated and may lack the mathematical abilities of the mainstream advocates and theorists (after all, they are alleging a systemic problem with how we educate astrophysicists). What people fail to remember though is that the same exact situation occurred for Michael Faraday, who lacked in theoretical skills but excelled in experimentation, and the large majority of his work was eventually vindicated when James Maxwell came in and quantified his lines of force. The mainstream theorists' and advocates' mathematical capabilities are not enough to make up for their lack of historical context. While many of these people can solve problems using the latest mathematical shortcuts, they oftentimes completely fail in regards to understanding both sides of the various controversies that have occurred within the field. This is a *big* problem.
Another reason is that people here tend to work on technology, and there tends to be a blurring of the lines between technology and space interpretations. Technology advocates tend to believe that our space interpretations must be as reliable as our technology -- which ignores the fact that broken chips do not sell and nobody is purchasing space interpretations.
A lot of people just believe that astrophysics is too complicated for them to understand, and they instead defer to whatever the majority of scientists believe, as if those people are infallible. But the EU Theorists present evidence that even non-scientists can understand quite well.
What's somewhat ironic is that EU Theory proposes a direction for research into anti-gravitation; it offers a surprisingly detailed starting point for an explanation for the origin of life in the universe; it presents very strong evidence for human history that spans around 10,000 years long, resolving all of the issues that have plagued interpreters of ancient documents for many decades now; and it even possibly explains why we are not seeing any results with SETI (as well as how to fix it). When people criticize it without even reading about it, they virtually ensure that no progress will be made on any of these problems. People who have not read what the theory says have no idea of the vast wealth of the evidence that supports it. We by now have the firsthand accounts of nearly all of the ancient cultures of the world in agreement on what was witnessed in the sky, and what they saw can *only* be explained by a plasma cosmology. The Big Bang never happened and the Sun is powered to a large extent externally. Period. The eyewitness accounts from ancient documents correlates with the unusual fossil records we see on Earth, and both of these correlate with our most modern observations of space as well as work on plasmas from the laboratory. Evidence from multiple, unrelated disciplines all agrees with one another on the major points.
But all I'm seeing right now is a Richard-Hoaglandish theme: whining about being Kept Quiet By The Establishment(TM) while pointing out "amazing" and "undeniable" details in fuzzy images instead of writing serious scientific papers that include testable predictions.
There are in fact numerous papers that relate to EU Theory. You can view many of them here:
And EU Theory is eminently testable relative to the more popular theories. Testing the theory, however, requires that it receive funding on par with the popular theories -- which requires that people like myself raise awareness of the theory.
Your allegation that there are no published papers that support EU Theory is based upon a Slashdot stereotype. If we are to get to meaningful discussion, we really need to avoid casting the theory in a light that is completely untrue.
It is not conspiratorial at all to allege that there is a campaign to keep EU Theory out of mainstream awareness. The wikipedia censors -- especially Joshua Schroeder (previously known as ScienceApologist) -- are over-zealous vigilantes who will stop at nothing to prevent a debate. They frequently portray EU Theory as not being supported by peer review journals. When a recent IEEE plasma issue was dedicated to electrical space plasmas and was authored by several EU Theorists, Joshua wrote a letter to the actual editor of the IEEE journal to complain that EU Theory was pseudo-science (without presenting any evidence to back his claim). Apparently, not only does he believe that EU Theory is wrong, but he's determined to make others believe as much in spite of the theorists satisfying his own requirement for publication.
But there is no shortage of history of science stories detailing unfair treatment of the idea of electrical space plasmas. This is not whining. It is historical fact that people by the name of Tim Thompson, Sydney Chapman and Carl Sagan have done everything within their powers to prevent science from accepting the electrical nature of space plasmas. You may be surprised to learn that even Hannes Alfven, the originator of magnetohydrodynamics, largely recused himself from the concepts that are today used to model space plasmas as fluids within his Nobel Physics acceptance speech. He was of course completely ignored.
I didn't view the movie, but from the description provided by our resident EU theorist, it seems to be something easily explained by Cartesian geometry and oft-encountered in orbital mechanics.
As the radius of the plume increases, yet its speed remains the same, its angular velocity decreases, so it fall behinds objects below it moving the same speed along a concentric path. Thank goodness for this or we wouldn't have geosynchronous satellites as we know them and Copernicus might never have figured out heliocentrism. Also, I'm unsure how much of the movement is due to the rotation of Enceladeus and how much is due to the motion of Cassini, which would change the perspective of the plume. The EU proponents can easily determine that last part (something more interesting than Cassini moving relative to Enceladeus is happening) by getting the timestamps and orbital data from NASA and crunching some numbers, but that might be considered a testable prediction.
I recommend that you simply view the video. It might clear up some of confusion you've created here. The planetary rotation, which can be identified by following the features of the shadow, occurs counter-clockwise relative to the stationary jets.
Additionally, the GP's argument is not any more supportive of the electric universe theory than it is of the Enceladians with Super Soakers Theory. He doesn't even give a useful theoretical description of why EU better explains the motion of the jets than conventional theories, much less refer to any work done to determine if it is likely or even possible. NASA has at least done calculations to determine what it would take to create the jets under their proposed mechanism.
The scientists also report the suggestion that the characteristics of the jets may depend on tidal frictional heating within the fractures and its variation over a full Enceladus orbit around Saturn. However, more work remains in investigating this issue.
The possibility, first suggested by the imaging team, that the jets may erupt from pockets of liquid water, together with the unusually warm temperatures and the organic material detected by Cassini in the vapor accompanying the icy particles, immediately shoved this small Saturnian moon into the spotlight as a potential solar system habitable zone.
But what actually lies beneath the surface to power the jets remains a mystery.
"These are findings with tremendously exciting implications and to say that I am eager to get to the bottom of it would be a cosmic understatement," said Porco. "Do the jets derive from near-surface liquid water or not? And if not, then how far down is the liquid water that we all suspect resides within this moon? Personally, I'd like to know the answer yesterday!"
If you see a hot point source on a body in space that is too small to be geologically active, then the simple fact is that it may be a plasma focus. The fact is that this possibility is not being considered by NASA, and this is the heart of the problem. It should at least be a possibility, but it is not for the sole reason that such an observation is precluded by popular beliefs regarding the mathematical modeling of space plasmas.
...plasmas can be highly electrical.
Thank you professor obvious. Plasmas are by definition electrical. For the record, modelling plasmas electrically is only valid if they have a net charge relative to surrounding objects on large scales. There is no trivial mechanism for that to occur, and without it the net force is zero. In that regards it actually turns out to be convenient for the universe tha
Many people will not realize this because they have not been reading what is being said, but the recent announcement that the jets of Enceladus are hot point sources that originate from the "tiger stripes" (more technically called rilles) is further confirmation for the Electric Universe Theory.
I would like to point people especially to the video at http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=1702&js=1&navjs=1. Now, watch the rotation of the planet, then re-start the movie and observe the lack of movement for the jets. You can see for yourself that the jets are rotating across the planet rather than with it, presumably along the rilles. The video is rather undeniable. Within the EU view, the hot point sources constitute electrical plasma guns that are excavating materials from the surface of the planet, leaving rilles in their wake. For a fuller treatment of the situation, visit http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060313moonjets.htm.
People, you will perhaps get no better opportunity to see for yourself that space plasmas can be highly electrical. The field of astrophysics is incorrectly modeling these plasmas as fluids, as if they only respond to gravity. But the space plasmas instead respond to electromagnetic forces, as decades of laboratory plasma research have already confirmed for us.
This is not the first time in the history of science when the momentum of belief has overcome reason. From The Electric Life of Michael Faraday by Alan Hirshfeld, page 73:
On October 1, 1820, Humphrey Davy swept into the laboratory of the Roayl Institution with remarkable news for Michael Faraday. While performing a demonstration before a science class, Danish physicist Hans Christian Oersted had noticed that an electrical current flowing in a wire moved a nearby magnetic compass needle. Whenever Oersted brought the compass toward the wire, something wrested the needle from its tenuous alignment with the earth's magnetic field and swung it in a different direction. Evidently, current in a wire creates its own halo of force -- later proved to be a magnetic field, not from an ordinary magnet, but from an electrical impostor. Oersted's observation confirmed what some scientists had suspected: Electricity and magnetism were fundamentally related. (This hunch was based on a philosophical stance that all forces are manifestations of a single fundamental force; scientists today are still trying to prove such a "grand uninified theory."
That no one before Oersted had observed the magnetic aspect of electricity may seem astonishing in retrospect, especially when battery-powered electric circuits were common in 1820s-era laboratories, and compasses had been around for centuries. True, the influence of a current-carrying wire on a compass needle can be subtle. (I've tried. It helps to wrap the wire several times around the compass to concentrate the magnetic effect.) But, more important, most scientists at the time had been educated (indoctrinated?) to believe that electricity and magnetism were distinct phenomena. In France, for example, where the ideas of the influential eighteenth-century physicist Charles Coulomb dominated the scientific community, electricity and magnetism were understood to be different fluids that do not interact with each other. After Oersted's announcement, physicist Andre-Marie Ampere lamented to a friend, "You are quite right to say that it is inconceivable that for twenty years no one tried the action of the voltaic pile on a magnet. I believe, however, that I can assign a cause for this; it lies in Coulomb's hypothesis on the nature of magnetic action; this hypothesis was believed as though it were a fact [and] it rejected any idea of action between electricity and the so-called magnetic wires. This prohibition was such that when [physicist] M Arago spoke of these new phenomena at the Institute, they w
The EU Theorists are always prepared to admit that they may be wrong (it's a fact of life and it happens to everybody), but it's important and would be helpful if you could point to some papers that demonstrate your points. The last thing that I want to do is spread misinformation, so it's important to me also that I not allege that there is an enigma if in fact the SSM can explain the anti-correlation using physical processes that are already acceptable to the model. If you point us to citations that specifically explain the anti-correlation as you do above, then our neutrino experts will review them and possibly correct whatever literature needs to be corrected.
Here is another example of a Relativity test exposed to be a fraud. Lifted from another forum...
In the recent book CHALLENGING MODERN PHYSICS (in the appendix), Al Kelly (an Irish engineer who died shortly after the book came out) says that they actually faked the data in their famous article. He got the report they wrote for the Naval Observatory (who paid for the experiment, I think), which was not given out willingly (he had to do an FOIA request) and found out that the data in the two write-ups did not agree! Kelly's discussion of the HK experiment is impressive (as is the whole book).
To give you a taste:
"the results were scattered plus and minus, which shows the total failure of the tests."
"Hafele and Keating then set about altering the results to get them to line up with the forecast results . . ..They did it by publishing a radically altered version of the results instead of publishing the actual results."
If Kelly is right (and I can't imagine any motive for making something like this up, although I cannot clain to know that he did not make it up) this is scientific fraud of the highest order, just as with the Eddington saga.
Required reading for anyone interested in the "historical perspective" of relativity.
Your views, like others', of Electric Universe Theory are completely the result of not objectively reading what they have to say. My role here on these forums is to convince people to *read* for the most part, because all of the questions you and others currently have are already qualitatively answered within their publications. The body of evidence supporting the mainstream theories is in fact "tainted" by the same pseudo-skepticism that prevents people from reading about EU Theory. Gravitational Lensing is an excellent example which I believe that I've covered. When you see a class of instances of over-reach in astrophysics, do you subsequently assume that it is an isolated case, or do you then point your skepticism at all of the remaining evidence for the mainstream theories? If you've only read mainstream astrophysical and cosmological materials, how sure can you *really* be that there has been a comprehensive attempt to rule out all other theories? In truth, you can *only* be sure of that by reviewing what the critics (the heretics) are saying, and the EU Theorists are among the best heretics out there. My point is that you decide what to believe when you choose your reading materials. And this leads to the next point, which is that when you read about EU Theory, you realize the power of the arguments and that there exists a legitimate debate that needs to occur.
Which leads to the lab tests and well lab tests are lab tests, if your lab test doesn't match observed reality, you usually assume that you got your assumption wrong about what happens in reality. As far as I know, EU does not match observed reality. to give an example even though I'm a bit hazy on EU, consider charge build up on objects which I believe EU predicts, this can be measured when probes visit them, which they have I believe and yes, some probes do have equipment which can measure electrical fields. As such the theory probably seems to have some predictive problems, which is certainly something that gets theories from even the greatest luminaries ignored.
Once again, your views are completely 180 from the reality. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but laboratory plasma physics is essentially a study of electrodynamics. 99.99% of all visible matter in space is in the plasma state, so this is a very big deal. When a laboratory plasma is exposed to charge density, it responds by adjusting its luminosity and electrical resistance according to three distinct modes: the dark mode, the glow mode and the arc mode. Electrical plasmas form from gases with less than 1% ionization! In other words, laboratory plasmas are *electrical*. Period. Mainstream astrophysicists allow themselves to ignore this fact in space by postulating some dramatic assumptions. Most importantly, they assume that space is quasi-neutral: that there are the same number of positive and negative charges per volume of space if you use a big enough volume of space. The thing is, electrical plasmas naturally form something called "double layers" in the laboratory, and double layers violate quasi-neutrality.
These double layers emit what's called synchrotron radiation (which we see everywhere in our telescopes) and in turn naturally lead to the formation of filaments. These filaments then attract to one another in pairs, which take on a braided rope type of morphology. When enough energy is inputted into this braided rope, a z-pinch occurs. Z-pinches can become so powerful that they can roll matter into balls (ie, planets and stars). We know all of this from laboratory experience, which is far more than we can say about gravitational accretion. Even the best models for gravitational accretion require shifting of planetary orbits, and leave enigmas like why Mars is dry and why some planets exhibit retrograde motion. In truth, we now know enough to go back through ancient testimony and determine that the universe does in fact operate according to a plasma cosmology (but this is another story told within "God Star" by Dwar
There was a time when learned men actively sought out phenomena that didn't agree with understood scientific theory so that they may have new material from which to work from. Today, it has been programmed into our pseudo-intellectuals that they shouldn't even bother looking at something that doesn't fit with well understood theory. I can't honestly see how someone could call themselves a scientist if all they do is read about and study phenomena that agrees with what they learned in school. But this does appear to be the world we find ourselves in. It's a shame.
The truly sad thing to me is that these people don't view the decision to ignore against-the-mainstream theories worth even thinking about. But in truth, it is a decision to favor the emotional attachments that they have developed for their belief systems over the possibility of innovative technologies that will make their own lives better. If they understood the ramifications of their emotional attachments, they might make a more rational choice. But, the system is as it is because it has evolved into a stable state. The philosophy of pseudo-skepticism prevents them from ever learning these ramifications.
They also oftentimes fail to recognize the bigger context of the situation. What's being argued ultimately by the EU Theorists is that highly violent and transient events can have a dramatic effect upon the universe, our solar system, our Sun and even our own planet. We see dramatic and rather clear and convincing evidence for this everywhere around us, both within the solar system and in our observations of deep space. By allowing themselves to be taken in by this notion that space plasmas are like fluids -- only affected by gravity -- the advocates of the popular theories imagine that we are comparatively disconnected from the more violent portions of the universe. They are able to compartmentalize the fact the mainstream does not understand 94% of the universe as if that stuff doesn't actually do anything, and they assume that they can permit themselves to not be concerned about it. This approach will in the long run play out like a Greek Tragedy if the course is not adjusted.
It was a great surprise to me to learn that the biggest impediment to a predictive and useful theory of everything, and creating a sustained presence within the universe is ultimately not so much our intelligence or knowledge, but far more so a function of our psychological preference for adhering to belief systems. In order to figure out the universe, society has to collectively give up all of the emotional attachments that we have developed for our popular space stories. And when you think hard about it, and finally get that that is in fact the problem, it's a great big "duh" moment. Space has become too much entertainment for the public. The stories are so fantastical at this point that the public is subconsciously developing a preference for the most absurd space stories that people can think of. The end result is that the more mundane, yet real, explanations become lost in all of the excitement of multiple dimensions, black holes, dark matter, and so on. The mathematics is the glue that keeps it all bound together, and it is highly effective at accomplishing that.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, in plasma cosmology, the theories associated with the creation and sustenance of stars cannot be so easily picked apart from the cosmology itself. Within plasma cosmology, stars form as a natural byproduct of electrical plasma behavior that we observe within the laboratory. The continued operation of the star is then subsequently a function of the star's plasma surroundings. Within plasma cosmology, there is no stellar ageing. I've received irrelevant criticism on the semantics of the situation like this for quite a while now. But you're so pseudo-skeptical of anything against the mainstream that you're not even reading my text properly. Try reading the quote more carefully and you'll notice that you're nitpicking.
Are you alleging that there are no electric fields in space that might be accelerating charged particles?
It sounds as if you're asking me to explain what a z-pinch is. There are plenty of plasma physics textbooks that do as much. One of the EU Theory advocates in fact, Anthony Perratt, wrote his own such plasma physics textbook.
You appear to be acting as if there are no problems with the standard solar model when in fact there remain issues related to some very fundamental observations of the Sun:
- The apparent anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrinos
- The acceleration of the solar wind, which continues even as it passes the planets
- The inverse temperature problem associated with the corona
We still do not know what is happening within the Sun's interior. People appear to easily forget the problems that the oxygen ratio crisis posed for helioseismology.
At least none that you'd be interested in reading about, eh?
You know, those guys are making predictions all of the time, some more impressive than others. The most interesting was Wallace Thornhill's Deep Impact predictions, which turned out to largely be true. Of the numerous predictions made about that mission that came true was the specific prediction that the contact would involve two separate flashes. This is important and relevant to this discussion because it demonstrated support for the idea that bodies in space can acquire charge density from deep space that differs from the typical charge density near the Sun. The pre-impact flash was in fact a charge neutralization between the impactor and comet Tempel 1's plasma sphere. But, of course, the mainstream alleges that the second flash was in fact a "post-impact" flash. The only problem is that, in order for that to be true, the object would have had to travel an amazing distance into the comet, which the light would have then had to subsequently escape through.
But, while we're talking about predictions, I recommend that you pay close attention to Enceladus. The hot spots on Enceladus offer convincing proof that space plasmas can become highly electrical. Attempts to explain away the observations using mainstream theories will become increasingly absurd as the quality of observations increases.
What's particularly disturbing to me though is the fact that you surely realize that the technology to identify electrical plasmas in space did not even exist until the last couple of decades. Mainstream advocates like to pretend that everybody had an equal head start as this tends to minimize the historical fact that consensus solidified on the mainstream theories before synchrotron radiation could even be detected in space.
By thoroughly debunked, are you referring to Tim Thompson? There exists a rejoinder to his assertions which has yet to be responded to by anybody at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm. By the way, Tim Thompson is well known for just throwing up a bunch of garbage to see what will stick. For instance, his assertion that the various Venus albedo values should be averaged in spite of the fact that some of the values were created in the late 1800's is a prime example. Even to this day, people continue to believe that he was victorious in those exchanges even though an unbiased review of the details demonstrates that Taylor did nothing more than repackage his assumption of Venus in thermal equilibrium into the conclusion. What's particularly unusual about that situation is that the wikipedia censors will not even allow mention of this fact onto wikipedia as they interpret the whole situation as you do without actually looking at ad thinking about the references that are being discussed.
Or perhaps you are talking about attempts to argue EU Theory on the Bad Astronomy Forum, as if these forums are not structured and wholly intended to defend the mainstream theories. On that forum, simplistic calculations are sufficient reason to discredit entire theories. People made a big deal, for instance, of the calculations that supposedly demonstrated that there was not enough charged particles to power the Sun. The problem is that the details of the solar wind's structure continue to reveal itself to be filamentary, and demonstrate that such calculations are now rather antiquated.
For the benefit of everybody, you should clarify exactly which attempt to debunk EU Theory you are referring to.
The study cannot absolutely confirm the origin of cosmic rays unless it considers all possible cosmological theories. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that within conventional stellar theory, supernovae can account for the high energies necessary. But within other stellar models -- like in plasma-oriented cosmologies -- it is not so difficult to achieve the necessary energy levels.
For instance, a relatively low density plasma can support a weak electric field. Consistent with this, a low amplitude (positive) electric field can extend from the Sun's corona. This would result from the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space beyond the heliopause. One can make a good case that the outward force on positive ions due to this electric field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.
It's interesting that astrophysicists would propose that supernovae are the only mechanism for accelerating cosmic rays when they have yet to establish a believable mechanism within their own models for how the solar wind continues to be accelerated even as it passes the planets. The notion that cosmic rays are in fact the solar winds of other larger stars, whose electric fields would dwarf our own Sun's electric field, is only dismissed because it is irrelevant to the popular models. But by not considering such possibilities within a fair framework of alternative cosmologies, the mainstream astrophysicists fail to take advantage of an opportunity to rigorously compare and contrast the various stellar models. What we get instead is a consideration of only a limited set of possibilities to begin with based upon a dramatic assumption that the current stellar theories are without fault. This constrained set of possibilities improves our understanding of the popular theories, but it would be false to assert that this selective consideration of possibilities is rigorous.
I'd love to hear why I might be wrong on this.
It would probably be proper to place a bold asterisk next to "discredited". There remain strong arguments for many things in cosmology, astrophysics, archaeology, geology, meteorology, subatomic physics and solar physics, as well as the interpretation of ancient historical documents and stories. None of these alternative theories are being taken seriously enough to be properly discredited. In many cases, evidence is trending in the direction opposite of mainstream. I would point as a clear case in point the announcement this week that uranium isotopes are not invariant. If that finding had occurred 40 years ago, science might have gone a completely different direction.
The problem of taking such a strong stance as your own in favor of the mainstream theories to the detriment of your own knowledge of heretical ideas is that you do not see that a common thread weaves its way through many of the most recent findings in seemingly unrelated disciplines. I recommend that you spread yourself out a little bit more in terms of reading material. You will start noticing things that you were previously oblivious to. Not everything popular, it turns out, is necessarily true. But you shouldn't have needed me to tell you that. Over time, it is inevitable that some ideas that are currently fringe will turn out to be correct. I don't think you even need to take a philosophy of science class to realize that. Just learning about a few instances of it in the past should be sufficient.
For instance, it was strenuously believed for many years that electricity and magnetism were unrelated. The connection wasn't discovered for 20 years after compasses became commonplace because it was just "common sense" back then that the two were separate "fluids". I respect people who have a lot of technical information, but many times, these people fail to objectively educate themselves on the philosophical and historical details -- as if that context for their skills is unnecessary. Part of this education involves at least properly grasping what is being said by the heretics to a level such that you can make a qualitative judgment for yourself for each new observation in terms of *both* models. If you make no effort to do this, then you will certainly eventually be wrong because science sometimes takes unexpected turns.
I can't be all that confused with respect to Arp because I'm at least aware that he's arguing that quasars possess *intrinsic* redshift. The extra redshift is not due to velocity from ejection, but rather exists as an apparent property of the matter itself. Arp proposes the explanation that redshift has an age component to it, which is one possible way to explain why the inherent redshift value (not the raw value, btw) appears to decrease in quantized fashion as the objects move away from the galaxies.
The argument that 40 years of time somehow changes all of this is nonsense. His images of filamentary bridges do not expire.
We should expect that mainstream astrophysicists will continue to develop their theories. All of the physical mechanisms necessary to explain away all of the enigmatic observations they've encountered over time are now sufficient to make the mainstream theories essentially unfalsifiable.
Seeing unusual galactic rotation curves? That's dark matter.
Got high redshift objects associated with low redshift objects? That's gravitational lensing.
Not getting all of the galactic shadows necessary to demonstrate that the CMB is at the edge of space? That's dark energy.
Artifacts within the
The problem occurs when tricks of the eye become a necessary theoretical mechanism for minimizing the impact of observations that are enigmatic to the popular theories. What you will oftentimes find, for instance, is that many claims of gravitational lensing are in fact attempts to explain away observations of high redshift objects and filaments near lower redshift objects. There is much eagerness to resort to such theories when the enigmatic objects pose a threat to the mainstream theories, but far less enthusiasm for ensuring that lensing is occurring for objects where it should also be occurring. See for yourself
Astrophysical Evidence shows Profound Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Physics
have been misapplied to Current Concepts of Gravitational Lensing
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
Also, many people do not realize that lensing requires an extraordinary amount of matter. Many times, normal baryonic matter only constitutes a small portion of this required matter. Non-baryonic matter thus becomes a fudge factor that fills in the required mass.
These issues are important because in addition to considering that our eyes are being tricked by things like lensing, and in addition to considering that quasars are metaphysically bright objects at the edge of space, we should also consider that perhaps redshift is simply not always merely representative of distance. When images appear to demonstrate as much, we should never allow ourselves to completely rule the idea out (which is pretty much what is happening right now).
The consensuses you speak of -- dark matter, dark energy, the Hubble Constant, the expansion of the universe -- are no more physical than laboratory experimentation, the fossil record or eyewitness accounts. And yet, you appear to be unaware that all three contradict these consensuses. Like others, you err when you lower your standard to what is most popular and commonly taught in school, and then you fill the void you created for yourself by limiting your own reading materials with the idea that that it can only happen by conspiracy. But then, if you never read enough of the alternative cosmologies to actually formulate a meaningful opinion of them, like 99% of the others on this forum, then why is a conspiracy even necessary? Do you not see that it is your own collective decision to not take other cosmologies seriously that is the cause of the misunderstanding? If people are convinced that we are on the verge of understanding the universe, then why would they investigate any alternative models? This is more than sufficient as an explanation for why astrophysics has become a meaningless thought experiment.
...
Explain to me why electrical plasmas in the dark mode are *not* dark matter, and we can count together the number of assumptions you had to make to get to that point.
I've read quotes from the scientists writing the textbooks on supernovae that the physics of supernovae within textbooks are only best guesses. And yet, an entire theory of expansion has been based upon this speculation.
You act as if the Astrophysical Journal is some completely altruistic journal, free of any politics. You ignore the fact that Arp's paper was outright dismissed when first submitted because it was reviewed by Chandrasekhar. Is this not even slightly improper for you?
You appear to not realize that there is a very long history of scientists dismissing the idea that space plasmas can be electrical, all the way back to the time when Sydney Chapman refused to even look at Kristian Birkeland's terrella in operation. Many years after it finally became accepted that the aurora is created by electrical currents in space generated by the Sun, Chapman still continued to criticize Birkeland's work. Why would things have changed?
Many astrophysicists do not even realize that Hannes Alfven pleaded with scientists to drop the frozen-in magnetic field concept during his Nobel Physics acceptance speech (the prize being given for magnetohydrodynamics, of course). It's simply not something that is taught, and no conspiracy is needed to explain it whatsoever.
I'm quite sure that you are completely unaware that both alligator and coral reef fossils have been found at *all* latitudes of the Earth for multiple periods of time. People are so quick to explain away such findings (which even Lyell confirmed were highly enigmatic) that they do not investigate it enough to realize that moving poles or continents cannot fully explain it. And yet, we see other planets in our own solar system where the temperature is rather uniform, and even warmer at the poles. Even better, most of you guys consider the concept of the Garden of Eden as a religious concept, completely unaware that numerous cultures of all types refer to the time before farming using the same exact details.
Please tell me: what is it about the *assumption* of uniformitarianism that you find so compelling? Is it absolute dating? Have you actually read about any of the studies of dating techniques that demonstrated that the method is systemically flawed? How about this
"The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results," wrote R. E. Lee. "There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected." - R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, 19 (1981), p. 27
According to R. Stuchenrath, whom Lee cites, the "whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy and it all depend
No, they evolved to feed us and multiply -- which by your own reasoning might suggest that you and I should not even be interacting on this forum right now. Arguments that minimize the adaptability of the human brain are antithetical to common sense.
The truth is that your brain is searching for reasons to convince itself of the position that it has already decided to take: that the mainstream theories are correct. What would be more convincing is if you actually realized this, and then started compensating for it by investigating various heretical views in science, attempting to actually either prove or disprove them in at least a semi-objective manner. What most people do though is to just dismiss things as their system of belief's preferences and prejudices demand. Halton Arp is the classic example of this because his gallery of peculiar galaxies demands at least a reasonable discussion within the astrophysical community. The mathematics of the situation can never completely dismiss the images that he presents. The only reason that the math takes priority for most people is because common sense has lost its value within astrophysics as increasingly complex and unphysical phenomenon are postulated. People have become convinced that the mathematics is more physical than the images that we take of space, but they only get away with this because these things are fairly distant. As you get closer in time and space, the theories become more "normal" for the brain to handle. Astrophysicists can play in the playground of their choosing for the sole reason that our surroundings are not currently hostile, and haven't been for a while now. But, it's short-sighted to conclude that it will always be so. Humans are not proliferating because of the successes of our astrophysical theories of deep space. We are here simply because those forces in deep space have stayed in deep space. The mainstream theories postulate that it will largely stay this way, but alternative cosmologies that involve the electrical nature of plasmas make no such promises. It appears that we've opted for the cosmology that presents the least threat to ourselves. Do you believe that this is completely by chance?
If we're observing that deep space is different from our immediate surroundings, then it would make sense to investigate why this might be so within the context of plasmas, which constitute virtually all of space's visible matter. What we observe with plasmas is that we have few of them here on Earth, and then once you get to the ionosphere, it's all plasmas nearly 100% of the time until you get to the next planet or asteroid. A reasonable person would realize that this is likely the point at which our own immediate physical reality becomes disjointed from the unusual things we observe in deep space. Sure, our local solar system also appears to follow standard fluid-like equations, but plasmas do not *have* to behave like that. They can become electrical within the laboratory, and no assumption regarding quasi-neutrality can ever negate that physical experimental fact, which we have observed within the laboratory and which we use in numerous consumer electronics.
That more people do not realize this is rather surreal. But, there appears to be very little desire for real introspection when it comes to the mainstream theories. It appears more like a frenzy to get media coverage by one-upping the man before you. Common sense lacks the glamour.
The real question is whether or not you and others would believe *any* study that demonstrates that objects can have inherent redshift. The typical argument that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is being misinterpreted to mean that no single piece of evidence can overturn the entire body of mathematical conjecture and observational interpretations associated with the popular theories. What people fail to realize is that there are indeed alternative cosmologies that can facilitate observations like Arp's, where speculation is not so rampant as to preclude multiple components to raw redshift values. But, by not considering those alternative cosmologies, it becomes easier for people to imagine that Arp's math is just wrong and that his observations are just "chance". This is nothing more than explaining away an inconvenient observation.
There is a more recent study out there with an updated dataset, and it supports his conclusions. The thing is, nobody cares.
Arp argues that redshift is more an indication of an object's age than its distance, so I fail to see how the effect would be noticed with the core of our own galaxy. Only new objects -- the quasars being ejected from the supposed black holes -- would have a high redshift.
This is hardly convincing logic though. The Sombrero Galaxy does not gravitationally lens either, even though it should. The mainstream theories have many problems of their own. But it is the only set of theories we teach to astrophysics students, so they are quite partial to it. People essentially decide to believe that redshift equals distance when they decide to go to school to learn astrophysics.
I hope you are joking. Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative resource for controversial subjects. You need to get into the habit of making a distinction. If there is a heated debate about something, you will only get the mainstream view of it from wiki. Hopefully, there is no debate about this ...
Wikipedia used to cite a paper that attempted to disprove Arp's observation of quantized inherent redshift. The thing is, the authors were not even aware that Arp's quantized redshifts were components of the total redshift. The authors disproved that the *raw* values were quantized. Apparently, so long as it is popular and disproves a heretic, accuracy is not all that important on wiki.
As for the citation, it will not matter one bit. People will believe what they *want* to believe, and people *want* to believe that the statistics are flawed.
It's not the eyes that lie. It's the brain. The brain wants things. It has preferences for and prejudices against theories. Our brains convince us what to believe by restricting our exposure to information. If something threatens our preferences or prejudices, we will refuse to let our eyes see it. So, in truth, the eyes are innocent bystanders.
Many things that are real, natural and true can seem strange to our brains, and many things that seem normal to us will never in fact occur in nature. Nature has no such preferences or prejudices. It just is.
Halton Arp discovered that quasars are in fact observed to be connected to or being ejected from spiral galaxies. Even though the mainstream theories badly need these objects to exist at the edge of space due to their high redshifts, more recent statistics demonstrate that Arp is probably right, and that redshift is not strictly an indication of distance.
But the fact that there is any debate at all on it is rather silly. People can observe the images that Arp discusses and decide for themselves whether or not he is right. The real question is whether or not you believe somebody's math over your own eyes.
I previously stated in my notes that
You mislead when you state that there have been landers since the four I mention. There have in fact been none. They were the last landers.
I'm curious to hear on what readings or logic this is based upon. Please go on
That's unfortunately a symptom of a much larger problem -- that mainstream science has developed consensuses on many scientific questions prematurely. After all, and for the sake of the record (for the "foolish kids" out there) astrophysicists did not even possess the instrumentation necessary to identify synchrotron radiation (which can indicate double layers within space plasmas) within the sky until recently -- numerous decades after it was decided that the Big Bang Theory would become the only theory taught to students. The question of the dominant cosmology was decided *decades* before it was even possible to rule out the idea that space plasmas might be electrical. Now that we can see synchrotron radiation all over the place, suggesting the possibility that double layers may in fact be common and presenting the uncomfortable possibility that quasi-neutrality may in fact be violated quite commonly, it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the current cosmology was arrived at "by rigorously gathering data and performing experiments."
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Big-Bang-Was-There/dp/0964318806/ref=sr_1_1/002-7321630-8444868?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192581975&sr=8-1
I am not a rogue element, as you seem to suggest. I am merely an advocate that is associated with a group of scientists. Are you alleging that the 100 or so scientists that I work with are all psychopathic and that we are a cult for believing data that you refuse to consider? Why would we go to so much effort to be scorned by society?
What is this based upon? You appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that there are numerous enigmatic data points related to Venus. Check it out
http://www.kronia.com/library/journals/venair.txt
No, I understand the basic arguments associated with both the mainstream theories and this one, and I can clearly see that EU Theory is closer to the truth. When I'm presented with images of high redshift quasars in front of and connected to low redshift spiral galaxies, I do not immediately assume that my eyes are being tricked in some way. I do not automatically consider any mathematics (like gravitational lensing) to take precedence over my own vision. I am equally skeptical of all theories. If I saw something that proved EU Theory to be wrong, I'd drop it tomorrow and move on to something else because I have no desire to believe anything that I do not think is true. EU Theory may not be as quantified as the mainstream theories, but this has nothing to do with how true it is. We can quantify many things in the universe that are complete bullshit. Mathematics has no monopoly on truth. It is just a technique for identifying truth, but it can be just as easily used to convince people of things that are not true.
Why in the world do you care what I believe? Why is it important to you that I think like you? Why are you so concerned that I might be sparking conversations regarding a theory that you do not agree with? How can you be so confident yourself that you are right? What evidence proves for you so conclusively that the more popular theories are true? Please tell.
From my own research notes on Venus' albedo
I agree that what's happening is rather unexpected and strange. People have been thinking that the theory of everything is elusive because it is horribly complex, as if doing just a little bit more of the same will eventually get us there. And so, physics has become a senseless, multi-billion dollar race to create the biggest collider, while scientists who have made significant progress in the field of aether models cannot scrounge together enough money to construct a small laboratory. So, the astrophysicists have broken their field up into a million specialties, never taking care to make sure that all of the disciplines are maintaining strong communications with one another. They then, intentionally or not, created a hierarchical system whereby astrophysics became essentially the queen of the sciences. Astrophysicists would essentially dictate to the other sciences what is real and not, ignorant of the fact that many astrophysicists have never stepped inside of a laboratory. They populated their hierarchy with mathematicians of all virtually identical pedigree and very little variance of education or even viewpoint. They failed to ever train the astrophysicists in school how to contrast and compare cosmological models, instead focusing explicitly upon one single model, completely ignoring all of the ramifications of invariance in education. Learning one model induces memorization; thinking doesn't start until you teach somebody two competing theories.
What will be one of the most startling discoveries of the 21st century will be the realization that pseudo-skepticism itself -- this idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof -- has acted as the true obstacle to discovering the theory of everything. It's the confidence that scientists are just a hair's length away from some ultimate truth that blinds them to the fact that they are in fact quite far off, because they do not even include within the set of possibilities the most important line of research -- that plasmas are electrical. If you go back in history, you will see that this prejudice against electricity in space has existed since the time that Kristian Birkeland tried to show his terrella experiment to Sydney Chapman. Birkeland believed that it was the Sun that was creating the aurora, and he made an experiment to demonstrate as much. By firing charged particles at an iron ball, he recreated the aurora. Chapman was convinced that the Earth was creating its own aurora, and he refused to even look at Birkeland's experiment or give due credit to Birkeland even years after Birkland's theories became accepted. The same sort of thing is happening right now. There are clues all over the freakin place if you can suspend your pseudo-skepticism just long enough to believe that perhaps we are not on the right track. There are a couple of people who have actually already demonstrated to the public anti-gravitation experiments, and these demonstrations make sense within some aether models. Yet, there is no interest in looking into them because since they do not validate the current models, people do not believe that they are possible.
This extreme pseudo-skepticism amongst the public and within our fields of sciences completely ignore the fact that science is not always a forged path. When people discovered the inverse temperature relationship for the Sun's corona, the constant acceleration of the solar wind and then subsequently the apparent anticorrelation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation, this should have been sufficient alone to suspect that the Sun is an electrical device. But it is the weight of belief that rules the day. Not only do the scientists want to find a theory of everything, but they want to also demonstrate that the universe is as they thought it was! Nature will have none of it.
The primary impediment to the theory of everything is our own unwillingness to toss aside our preferences for a theory of everything. In order to gain the most desirable knowledge known to man, we have to toss a
I've never done any work on wikipedia, but I do know Ian Tresman, who has arguably wasted a good portion of his life just trying to create a wikipedia entry for Electric Universe Theory.
I'm not at all repressed. I'm merely trying to provide information to people who are willing to listen because I've been reading about EU Theory for more than a year now, and I realize that there is legitimacy to what they're saying (this is actually somewhat of an understatement). To be honest, I find the whole situation quite absurd. The way I see it, many people on this board prefer categorization and ad hominem attacks over critical, objective thinking. I mean, what is really the issue here? Why are people so hostile to EU Theory? From what I can tell, it's partly because people have allowed themselves to develop preferences for the popular theories. People *like* the ideas of black holes, warped space-time, wormholes and the concept of numerous multiple dimensions. There is no realization that this is a very bad thing, even though many famous scientists of the past have warned against it.
It's also partly because EU Theory advocates are not traditionally educated and may lack the mathematical abilities of the mainstream advocates and theorists (after all, they are alleging a systemic problem with how we educate astrophysicists). What people fail to remember though is that the same exact situation occurred for Michael Faraday, who lacked in theoretical skills but excelled in experimentation, and the large majority of his work was eventually vindicated when James Maxwell came in and quantified his lines of force. The mainstream theorists' and advocates' mathematical capabilities are not enough to make up for their lack of historical context. While many of these people can solve problems using the latest mathematical shortcuts, they oftentimes completely fail in regards to understanding both sides of the various controversies that have occurred within the field. This is a *big* problem.
Another reason is that people here tend to work on technology, and there tends to be a blurring of the lines between technology and space interpretations. Technology advocates tend to believe that our space interpretations must be as reliable as our technology -- which ignores the fact that broken chips do not sell and nobody is purchasing space interpretations.
A lot of people just believe that astrophysics is too complicated for them to understand, and they instead defer to whatever the majority of scientists believe, as if those people are infallible. But the EU Theorists present evidence that even non-scientists can understand quite well.
What's somewhat ironic is that EU Theory proposes a direction for research into anti-gravitation; it offers a surprisingly detailed starting point for an explanation for the origin of life in the universe; it presents very strong evidence for human history that spans around 10,000 years long, resolving all of the issues that have plagued interpreters of ancient documents for many decades now; and it even possibly explains why we are not seeing any results with SETI (as well as how to fix it). When people criticize it without even reading about it, they virtually ensure that no progress will be made on any of these problems. People who have not read what the theory says have no idea of the vast wealth of the evidence that supports it. We by now have the firsthand accounts of nearly all of the ancient cultures of the world in agreement on what was witnessed in the sky, and what they saw can *only* be explained by a plasma cosmology. The Big Bang never happened and the Sun is powered to a large extent externally. Period. The eyewitness accounts from ancient documents correlates with the unusual fossil records we see on Earth, and both of these correlate with our most modern observations of space as well as work on plasmas from the laboratory. Evidence from multiple, unrelated disciplines all agrees with one another on the major points.
What the pseudo-skep
There are in fact numerous papers that relate to EU Theory. You can view many of them here:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources
And EU Theory is eminently testable relative to the more popular theories. Testing the theory, however, requires that it receive funding on par with the popular theories -- which requires that people like myself raise awareness of the theory.
Your allegation that there are no published papers that support EU Theory is based upon a Slashdot stereotype. If we are to get to meaningful discussion, we really need to avoid casting the theory in a light that is completely untrue.
It is not conspiratorial at all to allege that there is a campaign to keep EU Theory out of mainstream awareness. The wikipedia censors -- especially Joshua Schroeder (previously known as ScienceApologist) -- are over-zealous vigilantes who will stop at nothing to prevent a debate. They frequently portray EU Theory as not being supported by peer review journals. When a recent IEEE plasma issue was dedicated to electrical space plasmas and was authored by several EU Theorists, Joshua wrote a letter to the actual editor of the IEEE journal to complain that EU Theory was pseudo-science (without presenting any evidence to back his claim). Apparently, not only does he believe that EU Theory is wrong, but he's determined to make others believe as much in spite of the theorists satisfying his own requirement for publication.
But there is no shortage of history of science stories detailing unfair treatment of the idea of electrical space plasmas. This is not whining. It is historical fact that people by the name of Tim Thompson, Sydney Chapman and Carl Sagan have done everything within their powers to prevent science from accepting the electrical nature of space plasmas. You may be surprised to learn that even Hannes Alfven, the originator of magnetohydrodynamics, largely recused himself from the concepts that are today used to model space plasmas as fluids within his Nobel Physics acceptance speech. He was of course completely ignored.
I recommend that you simply view the video. It might clear up some of confusion you've created here. The planetary rotation, which can be identified by following the features of the shadow, occurs counter-clockwise relative to the stationary jets.
For the sake of clarification, NASA doesn't have a solid theory for why these jets occur. From http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Cassini_Pinpoints_Hot_Sources_Of_Jets_On_Enceladus_999.html:
If you see a hot point source on a body in space that is too small to be geologically active, then the simple fact is that it may be a plasma focus. The fact is that this possibility is not being considered by NASA, and this is the heart of the problem. It should at least be a possibility, but it is not for the sole reason that such an observation is precluded by popular beliefs regarding the mathematical modeling of space plasmas.
I would like to point people especially to the video at http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=1702&js=1&navjs=1. Now, watch the rotation of the planet, then re-start the movie and observe the lack of movement for the jets. You can see for yourself that the jets are rotating across the planet rather than with it, presumably along the rilles. The video is rather undeniable. Within the EU view, the hot point sources constitute electrical plasma guns that are excavating materials from the surface of the planet, leaving rilles in their wake. For a fuller treatment of the situation, visit http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060313moonjets.htm.
People, you will perhaps get no better opportunity to see for yourself that space plasmas can be highly electrical. The field of astrophysics is incorrectly modeling these plasmas as fluids, as if they only respond to gravity. But the space plasmas instead respond to electromagnetic forces, as decades of laboratory plasma research have already confirmed for us.
This is not the first time in the history of science when the momentum of belief has overcome reason. From The Electric Life of Michael Faraday by Alan Hirshfeld, page 73:
The EU Theorists are always prepared to admit that they may be wrong (it's a fact of life and it happens to everybody), but it's important and would be helpful if you could point to some papers that demonstrate your points. The last thing that I want to do is spread misinformation, so it's important to me also that I not allege that there is an enigma if in fact the SSM can explain the anti-correlation using physical processes that are already acceptable to the model. If you point us to citations that specifically explain the anti-correlation as you do above, then our neutrino experts will review them and possibly correct whatever literature needs to be corrected.
Once again, your views are completely 180 from the reality. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but laboratory plasma physics is essentially a study of electrodynamics. 99.99% of all visible matter in space is in the plasma state, so this is a very big deal. When a laboratory plasma is exposed to charge density, it responds by adjusting its luminosity and electrical resistance according to three distinct modes: the dark mode, the glow mode and the arc mode. Electrical plasmas form from gases with less than 1% ionization! In other words, laboratory plasmas are *electrical*. Period. Mainstream astrophysicists allow themselves to ignore this fact in space by postulating some dramatic assumptions. Most importantly, they assume that space is quasi-neutral: that there are the same number of positive and negative charges per volume of space if you use a big enough volume of space. The thing is, electrical plasmas naturally form something called "double layers" in the laboratory, and double layers violate quasi-neutrality.
These double layers emit what's called synchrotron radiation (which we see everywhere in our telescopes) and in turn naturally lead to the formation of filaments. These filaments then attract to one another in pairs, which take on a braided rope type of morphology. When enough energy is inputted into this braided rope, a z-pinch occurs. Z-pinches can become so powerful that they can roll matter into balls (ie, planets and stars). We know all of this from laboratory experience, which is far more than we can say about gravitational accretion. Even the best models for gravitational accretion require shifting of planetary orbits, and leave enigmas like why Mars is dry and why some planets exhibit retrograde motion. In truth, we now know enough to go back through ancient testimony and determine that the universe does in fact operate according to a plasma cosmology (but this is another story told within "God Star" by Dwar
The truly sad thing to me is that these people don't view the decision to ignore against-the-mainstream theories worth even thinking about. But in truth, it is a decision to favor the emotional attachments that they have developed for their belief systems over the possibility of innovative technologies that will make their own lives better. If they understood the ramifications of their emotional attachments, they might make a more rational choice. But, the system is as it is because it has evolved into a stable state. The philosophy of pseudo-skepticism prevents them from ever learning these ramifications.
They also oftentimes fail to recognize the bigger context of the situation. What's being argued ultimately by the EU Theorists is that highly violent and transient events can have a dramatic effect upon the universe, our solar system, our Sun and even our own planet. We see dramatic and rather clear and convincing evidence for this everywhere around us, both within the solar system and in our observations of deep space. By allowing themselves to be taken in by this notion that space plasmas are like fluids -- only affected by gravity -- the advocates of the popular theories imagine that we are comparatively disconnected from the more violent portions of the universe. They are able to compartmentalize the fact the mainstream does not understand 94% of the universe as if that stuff doesn't actually do anything, and they assume that they can permit themselves to not be concerned about it. This approach will in the long run play out like a Greek Tragedy if the course is not adjusted.
It was a great surprise to me to learn that the biggest impediment to a predictive and useful theory of everything, and creating a sustained presence within the universe is ultimately not so much our intelligence or knowledge, but far more so a function of our psychological preference for adhering to belief systems. In order to figure out the universe, society has to collectively give up all of the emotional attachments that we have developed for our popular space stories. And when you think hard about it, and finally get that that is in fact the problem, it's a great big "duh" moment. Space has become too much entertainment for the public. The stories are so fantastical at this point that the public is subconsciously developing a preference for the most absurd space stories that people can think of. The end result is that the more mundane, yet real, explanations become lost in all of the excitement of multiple dimensions, black holes, dark matter, and so on. The mathematics is the glue that keeps it all bound together, and it is highly effective at accomplishing that.