.... I suppose them we should put anyone away for things they MIGHT do....
Unfortunately, society and laws cannot deal with what someone actually MIGHT do or thinks about. Law cannot prevent crime. I can only deal with an individual AFTER they have done an action detrimental to another person. To protect people from each other is by far the major reason for having any sort of government in the first place. Almost all laws get enacted because someone did NOT care about the harm they caused to others. This human trait is called selfishness.
As to WHY people get "turned on" by various things would get us into a philosophical and religious discussion. If the deviant fantasies promoted by any form of porn cause harm to others, is it not the society's right and duty to minimize such potential harm? Is this not the reason we have mandatory licensing, vaccinations and insurance? If a person gets very sick and then others get sick because that first person refused to take doable steps to not get sick, is that right? Can a society force certain preventive measures?
Can society try to some degree attempt to stop the spread crime and disease? Should society try to prevent others from commercializing the fostering and promotion of certain kinds of behavior? Should those who drive be forced to demonstrate a minimum of ability and be financially responsible if they could cause harm to others through negligence or just pure accident?
I would not want to live in a society that punished people for what they thought or might do either. I do want to live in a society where every member thinks not only of themselves, but also of those around them.
No, not thinking, but putting those thoughts into actions that are hurtful or offensive to others. The foremost job of any government is to protect the people under its jurisdiction from one another.
Hitler persecuted people for things they could not help. People CAN control their ACTIONS. If they don't, have self control, then society has to control them.
....There is a world of difference between someone who thinks about committing an illegal or immoral act and someone who actually commits the act....
There is indeed a difference. However, people usually THINK about things before taking action. There is no way anyone can prevent bad thoughts (also good thoughts) or feelings from entering their mind. Once such thoughts do come, a person CAN nurture and feed them until they do result in actions. A person CAN also reject such thoughts and ideas immediately after they arise. When a person does that with bad thoughts, these will not result in bad actions.
It is not to a societies' benefit to make it easy and convenient for those who wish to entertain such bad fantasies at length. Punishing someone for the mere possession of material designed to feed such fantasies is hard to fairly implement. The making and selling such material for profit is easier to control.
It's kind of like laws against marijuana or other anti-posession laws. The mere possession of something should not be a crime, but only the wrongful actions that may hurt others in some way, that have been taken with that material or object. It is also easy for those with power to frame a person, using any anti-posession laws. Drinking is not illegal, but the action of driving while drunk is and should be.
Because actions begin with thought, it is generally futile and bad policy for any law to try to prevent crime. Laws can ultimately only deal with bad thoughts after they have turned into bad actions of crime.
....this is really, discrimination against thought crime....
Anyone who thinks about such behavior and anybody who profits in trafficking with material that panders to deviant sexual desires is not an asset to any society.
Not only does society have a right to, but has an obligation to protect those members of society who do not engage in such despicably deviant thoughts or BEHAVIOR. If a person thinks those kinds of thoughts and fantasizes on such themes, that is bad enough. In the end, a person IS what he or she thinks. There is a very high probability that anyone who thinks about anything long enough, will eventually act upon such thoughts. Evil thoughts tend to lead to evil deeds and good thoughts tend to led to good deeds. Society cannot prevent evil thoughts, but surely can and must do everything possible to prevent such evil ACTIONS.
Slaughtering them is probably not such a good idea. Reducing them to lifelong poverty or at least applying present punishment as if done with real children would be enough.
Laws should be primarily to protect society as a whole, rather than the punishment of such evildoers. People who get their sexual kicks from children, real or computer simulated are NOT an asset to any society. They should be treated as outcasts until there is genuine evidence that they have turned from their deviant behavior. A quick painless death for them is too merciful. Their miserable existence should be widely publicized to hopefully deter others from going down such evil paths.
....x-rays and similar do not indicate anything about any charge flows...
X-rays are ONLY produced by the acceleration of charge. Most often these charges are negative electrons. There is NO way to produce x-rays, except by means of energetically accelerated charges.
The fact that we detect intense radiation at incredibly high energies and intensities gives evidence for unimaginably powerful accelerating fields and immense currents flowing where these x-rays originate. These electric fields are created by the potential differences between heavenly bodies, such as galaxies, stars, planets and even asteroids and comets.
Electrical flows of such energies and intensities to produce such powerful radiation, are witnesses of an anything but electrically neutral universe. Any time there is an electric field, there is a difference of charge.
We also observe the existence of intense magnetic fields on the sun. We know the earth and other planets also have magnetic fields. Nobody knows of any way to generate a magnetic field apart from the movement of charge, ie electrical currents.
The solar wind consists of the movement of charged particles, mostly electrons. In extreme outbursts of these electrons flowing outward from the sun, our electrical grids can be shut down. We can actually MEASURE these direct currents that flow from the sun through the earth. In some cases the electrical resistance of the power lines is lower than the earth's and a significant fraction of these solar originated electrical currents flows through the power line and the transformers to ground, causing these transformers to overheat and shut down the grid, resulting in massive blackouts. These currents from the sun also cause failures of our communication systems and satellites.
An object can be highly charged in relation to another. A Vandegraff high voltage generator transports static charges on a belt until a considerable potential is built up in the dome against ground. This charge can be positive or negative, depending on the particulars of the belt and pulleys. If there were no leakage currents through the air, this buildup of potential could continue until enormous potentials are achieved.
Separation of charge and conservation are independent. When the above mentioned High Voltage generator operates, all it does is transport charges from one location to another. You can say if you want, that the dome has a surplus of electrons and is therefore negatively charged in relation to the earth. You can also say the earth has fewer electrons and is positively charged in relation to the dome. Therefore charge is conserved.
There is plenty of evidence that there are mighty flows of electricity throughout the universe.
....And nothing stops anyone from buying the full songs....
Nothing stop anyone from "renting" the song for 10 cents and connecting the output to the input and then recording it as it plays. Sure, there may be a small degradation in quality, but for the environments most people consume their music in these days, it won't matter much, if at all.
There is also software that intercepts the digital audio signal and sends it to a file, for copying to wherever the user chooses. We used to do that ages ago with radio broadcasts and a tape recorder. We also did it with video when the VCR was became common.
In spite of all that so called "piracy" the **AA companies not only survived, but became powerful, rich and fat. Maybe this scheme will work. A user can get 10 songs for the price of one and the **AA still gets a dollar. However, with rising gas and other living costs, the discretionary funds available for luxuries such as entertainment will become increasingly harder to come by.
...find it philosophically unpleasant that Nature isn't simple.....
Any time we try to explain something we see in nature, the simpler one is more often right than the complex one. This isn't ALWAYS true but often is. Electrical forces and currents CAN and do give an interpretation of the data we gather, that doesn't require the postulate that MOST of the "stuff" that the universe it made of only occurs in far away reaches of space and none of it can be found or explored right here at home. There have been, so far futile searches for this mysterious "dark" matter that supposedly may occur as WIMPs, magnetic monopoles and other particles that were never found; at least not yet. Perhaps, the new Hadron collider in Europe will come up with something right here at home that does corroborate the existence of exotic matter or energy.
The idea that the sun and the stars are powered by nuclear fusion did not come until we actually discovered atomic energy. Before Dr. Einstein came up with his elegant equation of the equivalency of matter and energy, everyone thought that the sun was run by chemical process they were then familiar with. Einstein's famous equation in itself would be nothing, if it were not for the fact that is has been spectacularly verified by experiment and observation in the real physical world.
It is interesting that we know far more about the electrical interaction than gravity. Science still doesn't even have the faintest clue how mass gives rise to gravity. There is still no way to tell the difference between inertial acceleration and gravity. We can generate/manipulate the forces of electricity and magnetism but know absolutely nothing about how we might generate or shield out gravity. Yet present day cosmologists ascribe the large scale operation of the universe to a force we know next to nothing about, at the same time, essentially ignoring the electrical forces we do know quite a bit about.
It doesn't really matter whether EU proponents such as Scott/Thornhill are right or not about all they claim. What matters, it seems to me, is that all cosmologists should take a crash course in electricity and magnetism and see how that knowledge fits or doesn't, the data they have. They should pay special attention to powerful arcs and high voltage phenomena in evacuated spaces, to see how these may be applicable to observations from space
We know of NO non-electrical mechanism, whereby we can make x-rays or radio waves, for example, yet present day cosmologists try to explain the detection of incredible x-ray intensities and radio sources in space to processes that don't involve immense electrical potentials and currents. We know of no way to create a magnetic field, other than by moving charges. Yet majority cosmologists try to explain detected intense magnetic fields on the sun, some planets and in deep space, to processes that don't necessarily involve electricity. They postulate magnetic re-connection and other exotic process that cannot be verified experimentally or observationally.
In the end, science is about experiments and observation, not about elaborate mathematical computer models that have little or no connection to physical reality. Just because the mathematics is elegant, beautiful and makes sense, doesn't mean it is connected to the real, physical world we can measure and observe. The equations tell us there MUST be dark matter. Fine bully for that. Until somebody actually finds some of that exotic stuff, right here at home, not is some galaxy a long time ago and far far way, such matter remains a fiction, even maybe a beautiful fiction in the best tradition of Star Wars.
Mathematics is a good tool for doing science, but in and of itself is NOT and never has been science.
...Gravitational lensing happens because mass bends spacetime itself...
Do normal lenses, such as the ones in your camera have anything to do with gravity? No? Why then should the intervening charged matter, or even neutral matter not also be able to cause this lens effect and have absolutely nothing to do with gravity?
What makes normal lenses work? Is it not that the speed of light in a lens is slower? Could it then also happen that charged matter, distributed in a lens configuration might also make such a lens effect? How would we tell the difference between a gravitational lens and a gas matter lens?
...This is because electromagnetism doesn't affect mechanics at cosmological distance scales...
That is patently false. The pioneer and viking probes have MEASURED, not calculated the electric current we call the "solar wind".
WHY is there such a resistance to the proven concept of electrical current flows in space? It's really a mystery to me. We KNOW from measurements that large electrical currents flow outward from the sun. These currents cause the northern lights and do, if strong enough disrupt our power grids and communication systems. These currents are real, measured, not some theoretical calculation in some computer.
The detailed behaviors of plasma doesn't really matter. The fact is that there ARE electrical currents flowing in space. There is no physics law that would preclude such currents from flowing throughout our galaxy and even between galaxies. The spiral arms of our galaxy are visible current paths along which there are numerous stars. Our sun with its planets is located in one of these arms.
So are you saying that the so named "solar wind" is a stream of neutral atoms? That is obviously false. When the sun puts out enough of this electrical current, it flows through the whole earth as well. These large currents may at times travel through some of our long, overland power lines, since they represent a lower resistance than the earth itself. These electric currents from the sun have been measured. Since they are DC, they can saturate the iron cores of the large transformers and cause them to overload and shut down. This effect has resulted in major power outages. It is especially acute in the Canadian Shield area in eastern Canada, because the Earth's crust is a particularly poor conductor there, causing an even larger portion of the sun's current to divert into the power grid.
We have very good evidence that large electrical currents are flowing in space. These current outbursts occasionally disrupt satellites and our communication networks.
The fact is that we live in an electrically active universe. That should figure in prominently in all theories that pretend to tell us anything at all about how the universe operates. The details of plasma behavior are fringe issues that don't really enter into this. We know that plasmas have poorly understood instabilities, especially at high densities. That lack of understanding is the primary reason why there still is no workable plasma fusion reactor.
...Understanding exactly how and why EU is a deficient cosmology...
I'm not saying that the EU theories are the be and and end all for our understanding of how the universe works. However current cosmology essentially ignores the role of the electrical interaction of matter in the workings of the large scale universe. I think that the EU theories offer plausible, simple explanations for the otherwise needed exotic and convoluted mathematical contortions of much of present day cosmology. I cannot understand WHY there is such a resistance to also considering the electrical nature of matter in trying to come up with simpler models. Models that don't require exotic processes and materials that cannot be examined in the lab.
We have made large scale fusion happen right here on earth. It's called the H-bomb. We know the components, energies and particles involved and produced by fusion. We have made, in effect miniature H-bombs via inertial confinement experiments involving the firing of powerful lasers at the constituents needed for fusion. We know from experiments, not mathematical theories, exactly what is produced and how much from the fusion reaction.
We ought to see these fusion products, if indeed the sun is really a large fusion device. Since we do NOT see these products, there is a very large question as to whether the sun REALLY is powered by thermonuclear fusion. That combined with the measured fact that the solar corona is so much hotter than the surface sheds further doubt on the theory that the sun is powered by fusion happening deep within.
God is not observable by science and doesn't enter into this discussion. However, we do make certain observations that cannot be explained by the existing, gravity only based models, without resorting to complex math and undiscovered and unobserved entities and principles. You assert that I am wrong, but do not give a reason WHY you think I am wrong. I am not asserting the the EU theory is all correct, but I am proposing that the electric force need also to be taken into account in large scale cosmology.
....However, dark matter well observed by its gravity....
That is because the light we do observe appears to be lensed, ie bent by what scientists believe to be gravity. The question now is what emits this light that is taken to be deflected by gravity? If this light is emitted by ionized matter, which is itself moving in accordance to electric or magnetic lens effects, how would we tell the difference. How would we know the lensing we see is not caused by the movement of the emitting atom fragments?
We also know from such things as lasers, that light does interact with atoms, including charged fragments of atoms. A photon impinging on such an atom or fragment can be absorbed and re-mitted at a different energy and in a different direction. This can also account for the apparent relocation of a distant light source by this atomic process. How can these processes be distinguished from the effects of gravity?
Dark matter was first postulated, to account for the observed discrepancy between the motions of galaxies and what these motions should be according to the laws of gravity only. There simply isn't enough gravity to account for the observed movements. That meant finding another source of gravity that would 'correct' the gravitational only theory to fit observations. That is how dark matter and energy came to be postulated. If however, the electrical force is not only involved in, but actually predominant in controlling the motion of galaxies, then that extra gravity and its supposed source is not needed.
...because the gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org] results seems to suggest otherwise...
How does mere "hot gas" generates the intense x-rays? The only way we know how to make x-rays and other radiation here at home, is by the acceleration of charges. It's a simple process we do every day. X-rays are not generated by moving neutral masses, but by moving charges, such as electrons or naked atomic nuclei.
How can scientists so confidently assert that the so called "hot gas" did NOT carry electrical charge and therefore interacted via the electrical force as well as gravity? We know of NO mechanism, whereby merely hot neutral gas can generate x-rays or even light. If you get any matter hot enough, that matter becomes ionized, ie. charge separated and therefore very active electrically. The electrically excited particles emit all sorts of distinct radiative energy, which tells us a lot about the nature of the charged particles that emit this characteristic radiation signature.
It is impossible, that at a temperature of 70 million degrees, as per the article, that *any* matter at that temperature would NOT be a highly electrically conductive plasma. Charge separated matter, ie, naked atoms and free electrons are the predominant form of matter in the universe. The nicely neutral, mostly whole atomic matter we are familiar with here at home, is relatively rare in comparison. All stars consist of such chaotic, highly charged matter, as well as almost all of the matter moving in vast clouds through the universe. The electric force has 36 orders of magnitude greater effect on that sort of charged matter than gravity. That means even a weak electric or magnetic field will have a much greater effect on that "gas", than gravity.
We also construct "lenses" with electric and magnetic fields which cause charged matter to be focused, move and get deflected. If the particles that create the light and x-rays are moving according to such electrical lens effects, how would we be able to tell that electrical lensing from gravitational lensing?
....the baryonic matter interacted through other means (like electromagnetism) and the two galaxies merged. But the dark matter didn't interact, and kept on going, creating a gravitational lens with no observable baryonic source of mass...
The dark matter did not interact, simply because it doesn't exist. There is nothing physically observable and the fictional dark matter "didn't interact" because nothing cannot interact with something.
If present cosmological models accepted the existence of electrical interactions between the large structures of the Universe, then there would be no need to postulate dark matter in order to explain the observed motions of the galaxies and the stars within them. The additional matter, postulated to create the force needed to obtain the observed motions falls away if the action of the much more powerful electric forces are also accounted for.
Many of the so called "mysterious" objects in space, detected in recent decades, such as quasars, energetic jets, and other highly energetic phenomena, fit the idea that powerful electric currents and the attendant magnetic forces are at work in ADDITION to the much weaker force of gravity. The movement of charges can account for the incredibly powerful energies of the electromagnetic radiation we observe. We make x-rays and radio waves here on Earth by manipulating electrical currents and fields. We also accelerate particles to rather high energies by electric and magnetic fields. Why postulate exotic gravitationally derived phenomena occurring in the depths of space, to account for the data we observe. The wild and wonderful exotica are unneeded since there are simpler explanations which can be tested in the any high voltage lab.
....Does a magnetic field affect neutral particles?....
Of course not, but then this is not about particles, but about objects of huge numbers of particles. All objects as a whole can and do carry charge which gives rise to electric fields between objects with different net charge. The forces of these electric fields are much higher than the forces of gravity on any object, even if the charge imbalance is relatively small.
Of course, photons and other neutral PARTICLES don't "feel" the electric fields, but any charged particle, atom, asteroid, planet, star, galaxy etc. can and would thus be influenced by the electric force. Therefore, this force CANNOT be ignored and the mechanics and motion of even the larger massive bodies are not SOLELY determined by the force of gravity. Most current cosmological models ignore the electric force. This is why fictitious, never observed constructs such as dark matter and energy are invented, in order to explain the data coming from modern instruments. If the electric force is included WITH gravity, these constructs are no longer needed to give a reasonable interpretation of the observed data.
The "deep impact" probe to comet Tempel 1 on July 3 2005 showed a definite bright flash of an electric arc, before the second flash of the actual impact. If there were no electricity involved, there would have been only one flash at impact of the 800 pound copper projectile..
....vast majority of plasmas are in fact electrically neutral,....
The very fact that a plasma is an electrical conductor tells us that it cannot be electrically neutral, but consists of charges that move in response to an electric field. The magnetic field associated with any current flow tends to "pinch" plasmas together and separate the polarities of the moving charges. The the strands of flowing plasma can be and often are isolated to a degree from each other, but still remain subject to the potentials that drive the currents. This has been and can all verified in the laboratory. At these pinch points, the energy density can be extremely high.
.....Or take a neutron - electrically neutral yet has mass....
I never mentioned individual particles, but objects, such as galaxies, stars, planets and people made from large numbers of neutral and charged particles. When a bare atomic nucleus, stripped of its electrons "feels" an electric field, it is accelerated. Most of the matter in space does NOT consist of familiar, docile, nicely neutral atoms, but of free ions and electrons moving at incredible speeds as they respond to the electric fields in all of space. We measure huge magnetic fields and the earth itself is surrounded by a magnetic field. NOBODY has ever shown how a magnetic field can exist apart from the movement of charged particles, ie electron or ion currents.
We know that there are electrical currents in space, from the sun for example. It has been named the "solar wind". We have observed that Venus and our Earth also have an electric "tail" that extends millions of miles into space. There is evidence that other bodies, such as comets, acquire great electrical charges.
If you have ever experienced static electricity or been outdoors in a thunderstorm, you should have some idea of what I mean.
The intense x-rays we measure emanating from various regions of space are powerful evidence of the existence of strongly accelerated charges. We know of no way to make such radiation here on Earth, other than by accelerated charges. Why then should such radiation arise in the distant reaches of the universe by some other alien mechanisms we know nothing about. The universe is a rather ordinary place, not filled with weird hypothetical constructs. The same electrical and magnetic forces that govern particles and particle beams are also at work in and among the galaxies, stars and planets.
Scientists are not necessarily a bunch of dummies, but ignoring the electrical force in a universe filled with moving charges is not very scientific.
.... I understand that there's a certain appeal to a theory that does away with dark energy, dark matter and inflation....
It does a lot more than that. It explains that the sun is not a thermo-nuclear fusion device. If the sun were heated from the inside out, its corona would not be three million degrees and the surface only 6000 or so. We know that heat always flows from the hotter region to the cooler area. How is it that a 6000 degree solar surface manages to produce 2 to 3 million degrees of heat from a 6000 degree source?
Fusion produces a certain number of neutrinos. We know this from theory and from experiments. If the sun were energized by fusion we should be able to measure a commensurate number of neutrinos coming from the sun. The problem is that we don't see even a tiny fraction of the neutrinos that should be observed, IF nuclear fusion were indeed the fuel that keeps that "giant "campfire in the sky" shining.
As we have been learning for at least 4 decades now, in our attempt to tame the fusion reaction, that the fusion reaction is inherently unstable. So far, we have only been able to make bombs that produce a surplus of energy for a very brief amount of time. If the sun and all the stars were run by fusion, they could not produce a stable flow of energy over time.
It is very humbling to realize that we don't REALLY know what makes the sun shine, any more than the ancients knew. We have theorized a better, more powerful fuel than a giant wood or coal fire, but there is evidence that this is no more correct than what the ancients thought.
There is evidence that our sun, as all stars are are the focal points of immense, invisible electric currents flowing through galactic and intergalactic space. Since the earth is part of and immersed in this power flow, it becomes visible to us whenever the current density is high enough to excite the atoms of the upper atmosphere to produce light. This is called the borealis, commonly known as northern lights. The earth's magnetic field focuses these currents to enough density to make them visible.
In the end, the sun appears to be nothing more than a giant light bulb, powered from a cosmic power stations sending its power though one of the spiral arms of our home galaxy. There are a many of such light bulbs called stars strung out along each spiral arm, including the one our sun and its planets are in.
....that astrophysicists don't take electromagnetism into account and only think about gravity....
If you were to examine the models and equations used by those that have come up with the never observed dark matter and energy speculation, you'd learn that they do NOT take into account the 10^36 times greater electric interactions, but do indeed depend on gravity only.
Neutral matter, such as we are familiar with here on earth is an anomaly. Most matter in the universe is electrically active, separated into positive and negative charges, between which charged particles can be accelerated to the enormous energies we observe in cosmic radiation. This fourth, most commons state of matter has been labeled plasma. A nicely electrically neutral universe doesn't fit into the observation of the high energy radiation we measure.
The mechanism we use here on earth to make x-rays is the same in the deep reaches of intergalactic space, where the powerful radiation we measure originates.
That statement is utter and complete BS and an outright baldfaced lie. Dark matter and energy are mathematical constructs needed by the faulty assumption that ONLY gravity governs the large scale universe at cosmic distances. Nobody has experimentally observed either dark matter nor dark energy. If these were observed, they would no longer be labeled "dark".
Slashdot Mirror
.... I suppose them we should put anyone away for things they MIGHT do....
Unfortunately, society and laws cannot deal with what someone actually MIGHT do or thinks about. Law cannot prevent crime. I can only deal with an individual AFTER they have done an action detrimental to another person. To protect people from each other is by far the major reason for having any sort of government in the first place. Almost all laws get enacted because someone did NOT care about the harm they caused to others. This human trait is called selfishness.
As to WHY people get "turned on" by various things would get us into a philosophical and religious discussion. If the deviant fantasies promoted by any form of porn cause harm to others, is it not the society's right and duty to minimize such potential harm? Is this not the reason we have mandatory licensing, vaccinations and insurance? If a person gets very sick and then others get sick because that first person refused to take doable steps to not get sick, is that right? Can a society force certain preventive measures?
Can society try to some degree attempt to stop the spread crime and disease? Should society try to prevent others from commercializing the fostering and promotion of certain kinds of behavior? Should those who drive be forced to demonstrate a minimum of ability and be financially responsible if they could cause harm to others through negligence or just pure accident?
I would not want to live in a society that punished people for what they thought or might do either. I do want to live in a society where every member thinks not only of themselves, but also of those around them.
No, not thinking, but putting those thoughts into actions that are hurtful or offensive to others. The foremost job of any government is to protect the people under its jurisdiction from one another.
...Yeah, Hitler found that out for us....
Hitler persecuted people for things they could not help. People CAN control their ACTIONS. If they don't, have self control, then society has to control them.
....We don't like how you think so we arrest you...
Nobody should be punished for thoughts. It is when these thoughts become actions that damage others, the society should step in.
....Does this mean everyone who's played pretty much any game isn't an asset to society.....
If you had read my post carefully, you would have notices the word "trafficking". What I mean by that is someone trading or selling such things.
....There is a world of difference between someone who thinks about committing an illegal or immoral act and someone who actually commits the act....
There is indeed a difference. However, people usually THINK about things before taking action. There is no way anyone can prevent bad thoughts (also good thoughts) or feelings from entering their mind. Once such thoughts do come, a person CAN nurture and feed them until they do result in actions. A person CAN also reject such thoughts and ideas immediately after they arise. When a person does that with bad thoughts, these will not result in bad actions.
It is not to a societies' benefit to make it easy and convenient for those who wish to entertain such bad fantasies at length. Punishing someone for the mere possession of material designed to feed such fantasies is hard to fairly implement. The making and selling such material for profit is easier to control.
It's kind of like laws against marijuana or other anti-posession laws. The mere possession of something should not be a crime, but only the wrongful actions that may hurt others in some way, that have been taken with that material or object. It is also easy for those with power to frame a person, using any anti-posession laws. Drinking is not illegal, but the action of driving while drunk is and should be.
Because actions begin with thought, it is generally futile and bad policy for any law to try to prevent crime. Laws can ultimately only deal with bad thoughts after they have turned into bad actions of crime.
....this is really, discrimination against thought crime....
Anyone who thinks about such behavior and anybody who profits in trafficking with material that panders to deviant sexual desires is not an asset to any society.
Not only does society have a right to, but has an obligation to protect those members of society who do not engage in such despicably deviant thoughts or BEHAVIOR. If a person thinks those kinds of thoughts and fantasizes on such themes, that is bad enough. In the end, a person IS what he or she thinks. There is a very high probability that anyone who thinks about anything long enough, will eventually act upon such thoughts. Evil thoughts tend to lead to evil deeds and good thoughts tend to led to good deeds. Society cannot prevent evil thoughts, but surely can and must do everything possible to prevent such evil ACTIONS.
....to slaughter the lot of them....
Slaughtering them is probably not such a good idea. Reducing them to lifelong poverty or at least applying present punishment as if done with real children would be enough.
Laws should be primarily to protect society as a whole, rather than the punishment of such evildoers. People who get their sexual kicks from children, real or computer simulated are NOT an asset to any society. They should be treated as outcasts until there is genuine evidence that they have turned from their deviant behavior. A quick painless death for them is too merciful. Their miserable existence should be widely publicized to hopefully deter others from going down such evil paths.
....x-rays and similar do not indicate anything about any charge flows...
X-rays are ONLY produced by the acceleration of charge. Most often these charges are negative electrons. There is NO way to produce x-rays, except by means of energetically accelerated charges.
The fact that we detect intense radiation at incredibly high energies and intensities gives evidence for unimaginably powerful accelerating fields and immense currents flowing where these x-rays originate. These electric fields are created by the potential differences between heavenly bodies, such as galaxies, stars, planets and even asteroids and comets.
Electrical flows of such energies and intensities to produce such powerful radiation, are witnesses of an anything but electrically neutral universe. Any time there is an electric field, there is a difference of charge.
We also observe the existence of intense magnetic fields on the sun. We know the earth and other planets also have magnetic fields. Nobody knows of any way to generate a magnetic field apart from the movement of charge, ie electrical currents.
The solar wind consists of the movement of charged particles, mostly electrons. In extreme outbursts of these electrons flowing outward from the sun, our electrical grids can be shut down. We can actually MEASURE these direct currents that flow from the sun through the earth. In some cases the electrical resistance of the power lines is lower than the earth's and a significant fraction of these solar originated electrical currents flows through the power line and the transformers to ground, causing these transformers to overheat and shut down the grid, resulting in massive blackouts. These currents from the sun also cause failures of our communication systems and satellites.
An object can be highly charged in relation to another. A Vandegraff high voltage generator transports static charges on a belt until a considerable potential is built up in the dome against ground. This charge can be positive or negative, depending on the particulars of the belt and pulleys. If there were no leakage currents through the air, this buildup of potential could continue until enormous potentials are achieved.
Separation of charge and conservation are independent. When the above mentioned High Voltage generator operates, all it does is transport charges from one location to another. You can say if you want, that the dome has a surplus of electrons and is therefore negatively charged in relation to the earth. You can also say the earth has fewer electrons and is positively charged in relation to the dome. Therefore charge is conserved.
There is plenty of evidence that there are mighty flows of electricity throughout the universe.
....And nothing stops anyone from buying the full songs ....
Nothing stop anyone from "renting" the song for 10 cents and connecting the output to the input and then recording it as it plays. Sure, there may be a small degradation in quality, but for the environments most people consume their music in these days, it won't matter much, if at all.
There is also software that intercepts the digital audio signal and sends it to a file, for copying to wherever the user chooses. We used to do that ages ago with radio broadcasts and a tape recorder. We also did it with video when the VCR was became common.
In spite of all that so called "piracy" the **AA companies not only survived, but became powerful, rich and fat. Maybe this scheme will work. A user can get 10 songs for the price of one and the **AA still gets a dollar. However, with rising gas and other living costs, the discretionary funds available for luxuries such as entertainment will become increasingly harder to come by.
...find it philosophically unpleasant that Nature isn't simple.....
Any time we try to explain something we see in nature, the simpler one is more often right than the complex one. This isn't ALWAYS true but often is. Electrical forces and currents CAN and do give an interpretation of the data we gather, that doesn't require the postulate that MOST of the "stuff" that the universe it made of only occurs in far away reaches of space and none of it can be found or explored right here at home. There have been, so far futile searches for this mysterious "dark" matter that supposedly may occur as WIMPs, magnetic monopoles and other particles that were never found; at least not yet. Perhaps, the new Hadron collider in Europe will come up with something right here at home that does corroborate the existence of exotic matter or energy.
The idea that the sun and the stars are powered by nuclear fusion did not come until we actually discovered atomic energy. Before Dr. Einstein came up with his elegant equation of the equivalency of matter and energy, everyone thought that the sun was run by chemical process they were then familiar with. Einstein's famous equation in itself would be nothing, if it were not for the fact that is has been spectacularly verified by experiment and observation in the real physical world.
It is interesting that we know far more about the electrical interaction than gravity. Science still doesn't even have the faintest clue how mass gives rise to gravity. There is still no way to tell the difference between inertial acceleration and gravity. We can generate/manipulate the forces of electricity and magnetism but know absolutely nothing about how we might generate or shield out gravity. Yet present day cosmologists ascribe the large scale operation of the universe to a force we know next to nothing about, at the same time, essentially ignoring the electrical forces we do know quite a bit about.
It doesn't really matter whether EU proponents such as Scott/Thornhill are right or not about all they claim. What matters, it seems to me, is that all cosmologists should take a crash course in electricity and magnetism and see how that knowledge fits or doesn't, the data they have. They should pay special attention to powerful arcs and high voltage phenomena in evacuated spaces, to see how these may be applicable to observations from space
We know of NO non-electrical mechanism, whereby we can make x-rays or radio waves, for example, yet present day cosmologists try to explain the detection of incredible x-ray intensities and radio sources in space to processes that don't involve immense electrical potentials and currents. We know of no way to create a magnetic field, other than by moving charges. Yet majority cosmologists try to explain detected intense magnetic fields on the sun, some planets and in deep space, to processes that don't necessarily involve electricity. They postulate magnetic re-connection and other exotic process that cannot be verified experimentally or observationally.
In the end, science is about experiments and observation, not about elaborate mathematical computer models that have little or no connection to physical reality. Just because the mathematics is elegant, beautiful and makes sense, doesn't mean it is connected to the real, physical world we can measure and observe. The equations tell us there MUST be dark matter. Fine bully for that. Until somebody actually finds some of that exotic stuff, right here at home, not is some galaxy a long time ago and far far way, such matter remains a fiction, even maybe a beautiful fiction in the best tradition of Star Wars.
Mathematics is a good tool for doing science, but in and of itself is NOT and never has been science.
....They're willing to try anything if there's a chance it'll break Apple's monopoly....
That could happen only if the songs from this harebrained scheme can play on an iPod.
...Gravitational lensing happens because mass bends spacetime itself...
Do normal lenses, such as the ones in your camera have anything to do with gravity? No? Why then should the intervening charged matter, or even neutral matter not also be able to cause this lens effect and have absolutely nothing to do with gravity?
What makes normal lenses work? Is it not that the speed of light in a lens is slower? Could it then also happen that charged matter, distributed in a lens configuration might also make such a lens effect? How would we tell the difference between a gravitational lens and a gas matter lens?
...This is because electromagnetism doesn't affect mechanics at cosmological distance scales...
That is patently false. The pioneer and viking probes have MEASURED, not calculated the electric current we call the "solar wind".
WHY is there such a resistance to the proven concept of electrical current flows in space? It's really a mystery to me. We KNOW from measurements that large electrical currents flow outward from the sun. These currents cause the northern lights and do, if strong enough disrupt our power grids and communication systems. These currents are real, measured, not some theoretical calculation in some computer.
The detailed behaviors of plasma doesn't really matter. The fact is that there ARE electrical currents flowing in space. There is no physics law that would preclude such currents from flowing throughout our galaxy and even between galaxies. The spiral arms of our galaxy are visible current paths along which there are numerous stars. Our sun with its planets is located in one of these arms.
...The cosmos behaves in a charge-neutral way ....
So are you saying that the so named "solar wind" is a stream of neutral atoms? That is obviously false. When the sun puts out enough of this electrical current, it flows through the whole earth as well. These large currents may at times travel through some of our long, overland power lines, since they represent a lower resistance than the earth itself. These electric currents from the sun have been measured. Since they are DC, they can saturate the iron cores of the large transformers and cause them to overload and shut down. This effect has resulted in major power outages. It is especially acute in the Canadian Shield area in eastern Canada, because the Earth's crust is a particularly poor conductor there, causing an even larger portion of the sun's current to divert into the power grid.
We have very good evidence that large electrical currents are flowing in space. These current outbursts occasionally disrupt satellites and our communication networks.
The fact is that we live in an electrically active universe. That should figure in prominently in all theories that pretend to tell us anything at all about how the universe operates. The details of plasma behavior are fringe issues that don't really enter into this. We know that plasmas have poorly understood instabilities, especially at high densities. That lack of understanding is the primary reason why there still is no workable plasma fusion reactor.
...Understanding exactly how and why EU is a deficient cosmology...
I'm not saying that the EU theories are the be and and end all for our understanding of how the universe works. However current cosmology essentially ignores the role of the electrical interaction of matter in the workings of the large scale universe. I think that the EU theories offer plausible, simple explanations for the otherwise needed exotic and convoluted mathematical contortions of much of present day cosmology. I cannot understand WHY there is such a resistance to also considering the electrical nature of matter in trying to come up with simpler models. Models that don't require exotic processes and materials that cannot be examined in the lab.
We have made large scale fusion happen right here on earth. It's called the H-bomb. We know the components, energies and particles involved and produced by fusion. We have made, in effect miniature H-bombs via inertial confinement experiments involving the firing of powerful lasers at the constituents needed for fusion. We know from experiments, not mathematical theories, exactly what is produced and how much from the fusion reaction.
We ought to see these fusion products, if indeed the sun is really a large fusion device. Since we do NOT see these products, there is a very large question as to whether the sun REALLY is powered by thermonuclear fusion. That combined with the measured fact that the solar corona is so much hotter than the surface sheds further doubt on the theory that the sun is powered by fusion happening deep within.
God is not observable by science and doesn't enter into this discussion. However, we do make certain observations that cannot be explained by the existing, gravity only based models, without resorting to complex math and undiscovered and unobserved entities and principles. You assert that I am wrong, but do not give a reason WHY you think I am wrong. I am not asserting the the EU theory is all correct, but I am proposing that the electric force need also to be taken into account in large scale cosmology.
....However, dark matter well observed by its gravity....
That is because the light we do observe appears to be lensed, ie bent by what scientists believe to be gravity. The question now is what emits this light that is taken to be deflected by gravity? If this light is emitted by ionized matter, which is itself moving in accordance to electric or magnetic lens effects, how would we tell the difference. How would we know the lensing we see is not caused by the movement of the emitting atom fragments?
We also know from such things as lasers, that light does interact with atoms, including charged fragments of atoms. A photon impinging on such an atom or fragment can be absorbed and re-mitted at a different energy and in a different direction. This can also account for the apparent relocation of a distant light source by this atomic process. How can these processes be distinguished from the effects of gravity?
Dark matter was first postulated, to account for the observed discrepancy between the motions of galaxies and what these motions should be according to the laws of gravity only. There simply isn't enough gravity to account for the observed movements. That meant finding another source of gravity that would 'correct' the gravitational only theory to fit observations. That is how dark matter and energy came to be postulated. If however, the electrical force is not only involved in, but actually predominant in controlling the motion of galaxies, then that extra gravity and its supposed source is not needed.
...because the gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org] results seems to suggest otherwise...
How does mere "hot gas" generates the intense x-rays? The only way we know how to make x-rays and other radiation here at home, is by the acceleration of charges. It's a simple process we do every day. X-rays are not generated by moving neutral masses, but by moving charges, such as electrons or naked atomic nuclei.
How can scientists so confidently assert that the so called "hot gas" did NOT carry electrical charge and therefore interacted via the electrical force as well as gravity? We know of NO mechanism, whereby merely hot neutral gas can generate x-rays or even light. If you get any matter hot enough, that matter becomes ionized, ie. charge separated and therefore very active electrically. The electrically excited particles emit all sorts of distinct radiative energy, which tells us a lot about the nature of the charged particles that emit this characteristic radiation signature.
It is impossible, that at a temperature of 70 million degrees, as per the article, that *any* matter at that temperature would NOT be a highly electrically conductive plasma. Charge separated matter, ie, naked atoms and free electrons are the predominant form of matter in the universe. The nicely neutral, mostly whole atomic matter we are familiar with here at home, is relatively rare in comparison. All stars consist of such chaotic, highly charged matter, as well as almost all of the matter moving in vast clouds through the universe. The electric force has 36 orders of magnitude greater effect on that sort of charged matter than gravity. That means even a weak electric or magnetic field will have a much greater effect on that "gas", than gravity.
We also construct "lenses" with electric and magnetic fields which cause charged matter to be focused, move and get deflected. If the particles that create the light and x-rays are moving according to such electrical lens effects, how would we be able to tell that electrical lensing from gravitational lensing?
....the baryonic matter interacted through other means (like electromagnetism) and the two galaxies merged. But the dark matter didn't interact, and kept on going, creating a gravitational lens with no observable baryonic source of mass...
The dark matter did not interact, simply because it doesn't exist. There is nothing physically observable and the fictional dark matter "didn't interact" because nothing cannot interact with something.
If present cosmological models accepted the existence of electrical interactions between the large structures of the Universe, then there would be no need to postulate dark matter in order to explain the observed motions of the galaxies and the stars within them. The additional matter, postulated to create the force needed to obtain the observed motions falls away if the action of the much more powerful electric forces are also accounted for.
Many of the so called "mysterious" objects in space, detected in recent decades, such as quasars, energetic jets, and other highly energetic phenomena, fit the idea that powerful electric currents and the attendant magnetic forces are at work in ADDITION to the much weaker force of gravity. The movement of charges can account for the incredibly powerful energies of the electromagnetic radiation we observe. We make x-rays and radio waves here on Earth by manipulating electrical currents and fields. We also accelerate particles to rather high energies by electric and magnetic fields. Why postulate exotic gravitationally derived phenomena occurring in the depths of space, to account for the data we observe. The wild and wonderful exotica are unneeded since there are simpler explanations which can be tested in the any high voltage lab.
....Does a magnetic field affect neutral particles?....
Of course not, but then this is not about particles, but about objects of huge numbers of particles. All objects as a whole can and do carry charge which gives rise to electric fields between objects with different net charge. The forces of these electric fields are much higher than the forces of gravity on any object, even if the charge imbalance is relatively small.
Of course, photons and other neutral PARTICLES don't "feel" the electric fields, but any charged particle, atom, asteroid, planet, star, galaxy etc. can and would thus be influenced by the electric force. Therefore, this force CANNOT be ignored and the mechanics and motion of even the larger massive bodies are not SOLELY determined by the force of gravity. Most current cosmological models ignore the electric force. This is why fictitious, never observed constructs such as dark matter and energy are invented, in order to explain the data coming from modern instruments. If the electric force is included WITH gravity, these constructs are no longer needed to give a reasonable interpretation of the observed data.
The "deep impact" probe to comet Tempel 1 on July 3 2005 showed a definite bright flash of an electric arc, before the second flash of the actual impact. If there were no electricity involved, there would have been only one flash at impact of the 800 pound copper projectile..
....vast majority of plasmas are in fact electrically neutral,....
The very fact that a plasma is an electrical conductor tells us that it cannot be electrically neutral, but consists of charges that move in response to an electric field. The magnetic field associated with any current flow tends to "pinch" plasmas together and separate the polarities of the moving charges. The the strands of flowing plasma can be and often are isolated to a degree from each other, but still remain subject to the potentials that drive the currents. This has been and can all verified in the laboratory. At these pinch points, the energy density can be extremely high.
.....Or take a neutron - electrically neutral yet has mass....
I never mentioned individual particles, but objects, such as galaxies, stars, planets and people made from large numbers of neutral and charged particles. When a bare atomic nucleus, stripped of its electrons "feels" an electric field, it is accelerated. Most of the matter in space does NOT consist of familiar, docile, nicely neutral atoms, but of free ions and electrons moving at incredible speeds as they respond to the electric fields in all of space. We measure huge magnetic fields and the earth itself is surrounded by a magnetic field. NOBODY has ever shown how a magnetic field can exist apart from the movement of charged particles, ie electron or ion currents.
We know that there are electrical currents in space, from the sun for example. It has been named the "solar wind". We have observed that Venus and our Earth also have an electric "tail" that extends millions of miles into space. There is evidence that other bodies, such as comets, acquire great electrical charges.
If you have ever experienced static electricity or been outdoors in a thunderstorm, you should have some idea of what I mean.
The intense x-rays we measure emanating from various regions of space are powerful evidence of the existence of strongly accelerated charges. We know of no way to make such radiation here on Earth, other than by accelerated charges. Why then should such radiation arise in the distant reaches of the universe by some other alien mechanisms we know nothing about. The universe is a rather ordinary place, not filled with weird hypothetical constructs. The same electrical and magnetic forces that govern particles and particle beams are also at work in and among the galaxies, stars and planets.
Scientists are not necessarily a bunch of dummies, but ignoring the electrical force in a universe filled with moving charges is not very scientific.
.... I understand that there's a certain appeal to a theory that does away with dark energy, dark matter and inflation....
It does a lot more than that. It explains that the sun is not a thermo-nuclear fusion device. If the sun were heated from the inside out, its corona would not be three million degrees and the surface only 6000 or so. We know that heat always flows from the hotter region to the cooler area. How is it that a 6000 degree solar surface manages to produce 2 to 3 million degrees of heat from a 6000 degree source?
Fusion produces a certain number of neutrinos. We know this from theory and from experiments. If the sun were energized by fusion we should be able to measure a commensurate number of neutrinos coming from the sun. The problem is that we don't see even a tiny fraction of the neutrinos that should be observed, IF nuclear fusion were indeed the fuel that keeps that "giant "campfire in the sky" shining.
As we have been learning for at least 4 decades now, in our attempt to tame the fusion reaction, that the fusion reaction is inherently unstable. So far, we have only been able to make bombs that produce a surplus of energy for a very brief amount of time. If the sun and all the stars were run by fusion, they could not produce a stable flow of energy over time.
It is very humbling to realize that we don't REALLY know what makes the sun shine, any more than the ancients knew. We have theorized a better, more powerful fuel than a giant wood or coal fire, but there is evidence that this is no more correct than what the ancients thought.
There is evidence that our sun, as all stars are are the focal points of immense, invisible electric currents flowing through galactic and intergalactic space. Since the earth is part of and immersed in this power flow, it becomes visible to us whenever the current density is high enough to excite the atoms of the upper atmosphere to produce light. This is called the borealis, commonly known as northern lights. The earth's magnetic field focuses these currents to enough density to make them visible.
In the end, the sun appears to be nothing more than a giant light bulb, powered from a cosmic power stations sending its power though one of the spiral arms of our home galaxy. There are a many of such light bulbs called stars strung out along each spiral arm, including the one our sun and its planets are in.
....that astrophysicists don't take electromagnetism into account and only think about gravity....
If you were to examine the models and equations used by those that have come up with the never observed dark matter and energy speculation, you'd learn that they do NOT take into account the 10^36 times greater electric interactions, but do indeed depend on gravity only.
Neutral matter, such as we are familiar with here on earth is an anomaly. Most matter in the universe is electrically active, separated into positive and negative charges, between which charged particles can be accelerated to the enormous energies we observe in cosmic radiation. This fourth, most commons state of matter has been labeled plasma. A nicely electrically neutral universe doesn't fit into the observation of the high energy radiation we measure.
The mechanism we use here on earth to make x-rays is the same in the deep reaches of intergalactic space, where the powerful radiation we measure originates.
...Dark mater is an experimental observation...
That statement is utter and complete BS and an outright baldfaced lie. Dark matter and energy are mathematical constructs needed by the faulty assumption that ONLY gravity governs the large scale universe at cosmic distances. Nobody has experimentally observed either dark matter nor dark energy. If these were observed, they would no longer be labeled "dark".