Crisis in Cosmology

eanassir

Time Out
Jul 26, 2007
3,099
9
38
It is common, on earth, to explain wind as moving atmosphere propelled by heat differential. It is also common to explain atmosphere as "gaseous". On Mars the atmosphere is way too thin to ,at any speed, to pick up and move sand, that requires electrical current. The atmospheric conditions you describe are the result of dust load in the stead of atmospheric gas. Mars may have been a lush inhabited planet in recent historical times. It only takes one bad afternoon to ruin any planet with the thunderbolts of the gods.


darkbeaver,this is the manifest error and confusion; you are misguided with this electricity, and you say "gods" as is the atheist misguided by saying "no god".

The data they get about Mars are wrong and defective. Mars has a considerable atmosphere, but they do not see the truth before their eyes; Glory be to God; very strange indeed.

They see the ice in the poles and on the tops of the high mountains, but they say it is frozen CO2.
They see the cloud moving in the atmosphere just like with our Earth and they see the evening afterglow of the sun-set which needs a considerable atmosphere height with dust in the atmosphere, and it lasts more than that on Earth.

Moreover, I see you are intelligent; so Who endowed you with such intelligence unless He is More Wise and All-Knowing? As in the Quran 12: 76
وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ

The explanation:
(And above everyone with knowledge there is the All-Knowing [Lord.] )

 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
darkbeaver,this is the manifest error and confusion; you are misguided with this electricity, and you say "gods" as is the atheist misguided by saying "no god".

The data they get about Mars are wrong and defective. Mars has a considerable atmosphere, but they do not see the truth before their eyes; Glory be to God; very strange indeed.

They see the ice in the poles and on the tops of the high mountains, but they say it is frozen CO2.
They see the cloud moving in the atmosphere just like with our Earth and they see the evening afterglow of the sun-set which needs a considerable atmosphere height with dust in the atmosphere, and it lasts more than that on Earth.

Moreover, I see you are intelligent; so Who endowed you with such intelligence unless He is More Wise and All-Knowing? As in the Quran 12: 76
وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ

The explanation:
(And above everyone with knowledge there is the All-Knowing [Lord.] )

Of course there's an All Knowing God (the One and Only) who I believe in because I haven't got any choice, it is a primal command that we all do well not to forget by remembering. Angels (assistant gods) however are common as snow shovels, created and equiped by the One to administer the many forms living in the wilds of earth where souls are forged hard and true in the tempting flames of carnal existence. How could you possibly confuse me with an unbeliever?
Misguided by electricity? I will resist praying for your immediate enlightningment, only because I know you are a good person who has been led astray by the religious nuts in this thread.
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The Biographies of Cas A

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Mel Acheson
Evolution of an artist’s illustration into an inside-out star. Credit: Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss; X-ray: NASA/CXC/GSFC/U.Hwang & J.Laming


Sep 11, 2012
Is Cassiopeia A (Cas A) dying or just changing her fashion?
Bio 1:
In the beginning was an artist’s illustration of the consensus theory of stellar evolution. Thermonuclear fusion reactions at the center of the star transformed hydrogen into helium. After a time, the growing core of helium contracted enough under its own gravity to heat up to the stage where the helium transformed into oxygen and carbon. Successive contractions and transformations built up shells of neon, magnesium, silicon, and sulfur.
Finally, a core of iron began to grow. Iron is the dead-end of transformation succession: fusion reactions beyond iron absorb more energy than they release. The core can never balance it’s contracting with a new source of energy.
Three hundred years ago, the iron core of Cas A collapsed. The layers above imploded and blew themselves into space as a supernova.
R.I.P.
But now the autopsy reveals something surprising: the guts of the star—the iron and silicon and sulfur that should have been on the inside, that should have collapsed into a neutron star—are on the outside. The coroner reports, “Surprisingly, there is no evidence…for iron near the center…. Also, much of the silicon and sulfur, as well as the magnesium, is now found toward the outer edges…. [Something] somehow turned the star inside out.” He found in the outer layers “clumps of almost pure iron, [which] must have been produced by nuclear reactions near the center….”
Let’s examine this casual admission of surprise more closely. If the coroner was surprised, it must be because he was expecting something else. He was expecting something else because his theory predicted something else. Now a standard test procedure in science is to deduce some particular phenomenon from the theory to be tested and then to look for whether or not the phenomenon occurs. If it does, one proclaims that the theory has been validated (although this is a logically suspect exaggeration). If the phenomenon doesn’t occur…. Well, the matter is often simply hushed up. But logically the theory has been falsified, which means it’s not true, which means that only a fool would continue believing in it. Now, I don’t wish to cast aspersions on astronomers’ motley; I’ll just mention that they’re wearing it.
Furthermore, the coroner remarked that “[o]xygen, which according to theoretical models is the most abundant element in the remnant, is difficult to detect…because almost all the oxygen ions have had all their electrons stripped away.” It takes an astronomical amount of heat to smack oxygen atoms together hard enough to knock off all their electrons. The alleged explosion was long ago and far away. One might expect the debris to cool off a bit.
On the other hand (to foreshadow Bio 2), it takes only a modest amount of electricity to publicly embarrass an oxygen nucleus like that. A double layer capable of accelerating protons to cosmic-ray energies will strip electrons off oxygen atoms as easily as a bartender pops caps off beer bottles at happy hour.
Bio 2:
In the beginning was an analogy between the observed properties of plasma discharges in a lab and the observed characteristics of stars. A Bennett pinch in a galactic-scale Birkeland current squeezed the ambient plasma into a glowing balloon. High-energy discharges to the glowing skin generated light and x-rays, fused hydrogen into heavier elements, and sorted the elements into clumps and layers of like materials.
Three hundred years ago, an instability in the discharge current triggered a star-encompassing double layer to expand catastrophically. It carried not only the elements but also the processes that fused and sorted them into space.
Now, what’s on the outside of the nebula is merely a more distant version of what was originally on the outside of the star. The guts are still on the inside; we needn’t be nauseated or surprised; we still don’t know anything about them.
But we do know that the star is as much electrically alive as it always was; it just switched to a different mode of operation. Mourning is unnecessary.
The coroner would better spend his time on an autopsy of his theory than of his star.
Mel Acheson
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
← Electric “Creation”

Plasma Twisting and Rock Banging

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Mel Acheson
Pencil Nebula. Credit: ESO


Sep 14, 2012
This recent image of the Pencil Nebula from La Silla Observatory showcases a cosmic counterpart to “hair” discharges from Tesla coils.
Electric forces separate the plasma into parallel filaments. Magnetic forces further constrict them (the “z pinch”) and induce them to twist around each other, producing a braided effect (plasma “cables”). Each filament is a Birkeland current and therefore part of a larger circuit. The currents continue beyond the visible edge of the nebula in “dark mode”: The current density is not high enough to make the plasma glow. In the visible region, either the plasma density has increased or the electric field has become stronger, producing enough charge carriers to push the plasma into “glow mode.”
This common effect studied in plasma labs is unknown (or ignored) in astrophysics, due in large part to a taboo against electricity that became institutionalized in the early years of the 20th century. “You can’t get charge separation in space” became a dogma that has turned a blind eye to the flood of electrical data from the space age.
Deprived of the simple explanation for electrical effects, astrophysicists had to find ways to explain them with gravity, collisions, and explosions—metaphorically, by banging rocks together. In this constricted lexicon, streetlights must be powered by falling rocks. The Pencil Nebula must be the remnant of an exploded star, whose spherical shock wave collided with interstellar gas, somehow produced parallel braided filaments, and ionized hydrogen and oxygen atoms without changing the gas into plasma.
If the nebula did originate in an explosion, it would have been an exploding “double layer” that powered an expanding loop of current, which is likely driven still today by the galactic circuit to which it is coupled.
Mel Acheson
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
It's the sympathetic magic thread. These guys believe that if something looks like X, it must be X. For instance, dendritic drainage patterns resemble the pattern of fractures an electrical discharge can make in a block of lucite, therefore the Colorado River was created by a giant lightning bolt. Same thing here, gas filaments in space look like laboratory-scale discharges from a tesla coil, therefore they must be the same phenomenon. I'd be more impressed--but not much--if they could actually do the math in support of their claims, but they can't, and when others do it, as I've shown this dim rodent regarding the electric sun hypothesis, it gives the lie to their claims. They just talk physics, they can't really do it.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
It's the sympathetic magic thread. These guys believe that if something looks like X, it must be X. For instance, dendritic drainage patterns resemble the pattern of fractures an electrical discharge can make in a block of lucite, therefore the Colorado River was created by a giant lightning bolt. Same thing here, gas filaments in space look like laboratory-scale discharges from a tesla coil, therefore they must be the same phenomenon. I'd be more impressed--but not much--if they could actually do the math in support of their claims, but they can't, and when others do it, as I've shown this dim rodent regarding the electric sun hypothesis, it gives the lie to their claims. They just talk physics, they can't really do it.
Yes, I remember. I also showed mathematically the maximum speed of an electron which the dimrodent couldn't reply to with any lectricle uneeverse science.
Funny shyte. :D
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
Once more, a group of trogdolytes is attempting to put their views ahead of established science.. They have no facts to support their views.

They are like "Christians" who actually believe that the entire Universe was created in 7 Earth days. They believe that each and every word of the Bible is literal truth.

I always ask them, which version of the Commandmanets is the right one? They look at me like deer in the headlights.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Plasma physicist Alex Dessler wrote: “When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S. Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén’s work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. I learned that a cosmic ray acceleration mechanism basically identical to the famous mechanism suggested by Fermi in 1949 had [previously] been put forth by Alfvén.”
— Quoted in Anthony L. Peratt, “Dean of the Plasma Dissidents“, Washington Times, supplement: The World and I (May 1988).
Stephen Smith

Once more, a group of trogdolytes is attempting to put their views ahead of established science.. They have no facts to support their views.

They are like "Christians" who actually believe that the entire Universe was created in 7 Earth days. They believe that each and every word of the Bible is literal truth.

I always ask them, which version of the Commandmanets is the right one? They look at me like deer in the headlights.

I don't suppose you 've considered the despicable state of established science.
Charleston Voice: Two Thirds of Scientific Publications Retracted Are Fraudulent

AN astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
AN astonishing two-thirds of all biomedical and life-science research publications and research articles that have been retracted from the public domain have been retracted because of fraud.
I don't find that astonishing at all. What better reason is there for retraction? It says nothing about the "despicable state of established science," as you put it, it says only that fraud is the most common reason for retractions in biomedical and life sciences research, that's all you can conclude from it. The headline and the way that piece is written seem to be hinting that two thirds of all scientific publications are fraudulent, and no doubt there are some sloppy thinkers who'll remember it that way, but that's not what it says.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Actually, close to two-thirds of retracted papers are due to misconduct. DB's link says fraud or suspected fraud made up 43.4%. But the link also thought it surprising that it took an average of 32.9 months to retract a paper.

I don't see why that is surprising. There are many biomedical studies that involve long timelines. 32 months doesn't seem that long in fact. The paper gets published, maybe a comment is written from a skeptical scientist. Followed by other studies. If it can't be replicated and there is other information that comes to light, then maybe the paper is retracted if it can be shown that there was misconduct.

I guess the writers at that link may find it more convenient to ignore findings based on their ideology rather than on rigorous hypothesis testing.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Yeah, when you look at the links on that page--New World Order, Rothschilds, etc., standard tinfoil hat stuff--it appears to be a conspiracy theory blogger's page. Junk sites are the only source of info the Beave cites here, which is why when he's not being flippant he's usually wrong. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference though.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
There was an old poster called Beave
Who to junk sites always would cleave
But the sight of the sites
That the Beaver did cite
Made everyone just want to leave.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Redshifts and Microwaves

Posted on March 28, 2013 by Stephen Smith
Galaxy NGC 7319. Arrow points to foreground high redshift quasar.
Credit: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope


March 29, 2013
Modern astronomy surely suffers from a kind of blindness. It is either a blindness of mind or one of practice.
The continuing presence of Big Bang cosmology among those who are charged with increasing the store of scientific knowledge proves that there certainly is blindness in some form. Not only astronomers, but science reporters have lost the ability to differentiate fact from theory, thus helping to perpetuate the Big Bang. Media reports constantly assert that new discoveries confirm it when such reports are not based on observational evidence.
On October 3, 2003, the Big Bang theory was falsified by direct observation. The galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for “nearby” galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319′s opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114.
The two principle tenets of the Big Bang theory are that redshift is proportional to distance and that it is an indicator of velocity. The larger an object’s redshift the farther away it is and the faster it is moving away from the observer. Those two ideas provide the backdrop for the commonly held belief that the Universe is expanding.
According to the Big Bang, the NGC 7319 quasar “must be billions of light years farther away than the galaxy” because it has a higher redshift. Yet, since the galaxy is opaque, the quasar has to be in front of the galactic dust clouds and not shining through them.
“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said the late astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge at the time. The discovery team included his spouse, E. Margaret Burbidge, another noted astronomer. The find was significant because it is the most extreme example of a quasar in front of a galaxy with a lower redshift.
Conventional cosmology relies on an electrically neutral Universe ruled by gravity. Without this dogmatic consensus, the Big Bang would never have become so predominant. Scientists, needing to renew their grants every year, “confirm” the theory when, according to reports, it has been discredited. Magazine publishers desire to maintain good relationships with established institutions, so they accept the latest news releases with little background investigation or critical analysis.
On June 30, 2001, NASA launched the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) on a mission to reexamine some unusual telemetry returned by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992. Temperature fluctuations data seemed to suggest that there were regions of lower mass density in the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory does not account for such regions—matter and energy should be evenly distributed—the WMAP survey was sent to verify COBE’s results.
Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill pointed out that neither COBE or WMAP detected “cosmic” radiation. Rather, they both found the natural microwave radiation from “electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the Universe.”
The Electric Universe theory has an entirely different way of addressing these matters. It does not rely on unseen and undetectable forces whose existence can only be inferred. Electric currents flowing through ionized gas and dust provide the energy for the stars, presenting themselves in straightforward and understandable ways without resorting to esoteric mathematical models.
Redshifts and microwaves have proven themselves inadequate to explain how the Universe functions.
Stephen Smith
 

Historic

Nominee Member
Mar 27, 2013
53
0
6
Ontario
Hi Darkbeaver,

The Electric Universe theory....this interests me. I'm going to do some research into this as it is the first time hearing about it but I'll be back for sure. There is no doubt about how the BBT is dominating the scene at the moment but it will pass. I am REALLY curious about the interplay of electricity and time but from a simple poorly educated in this field point of view. But hey, interest is interest and I'll be back...

Hi Darkbeaver,
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Hi Darkbeaver,

The Electric Universe theory....this interests me. I'm going to do some research into this as it is the first time hearing about it but I'll be back for sure. There is no doubt about how the BBT is dominating the scene at the moment but it will pass. I am REALLY curious about the interplay of electricity and time but from a simple poorly educated in this field point of view. But hey, interest is interest and I'll be back...

Hi Darkbeaver,

Well if you have trouble understanding relativity, and a normal well adjusted person naturally does, then the electromagnetic theory is for you. Poorly educated, don't worry about it, we all were.
 

Historic

Nominee Member
Mar 27, 2013
53
0
6
Ontario
Relativity...time versus speed? No problem...

String theory fascinates me but not because I think it quite accurate but the way it uses a grid to describe the various dimensions seems to me to have some merit but I struggle to put my finger on just why I think so.

This Electric Universe Theory is just new to me and I can't wait to understand. I kind of figured you would have the patience to let me catch up. See you here soon, thanks for posting such interesting stuff.

With the grid in string theory it is how the strings interact with each other and what do the strings really represent that interests me. Is it akin to a musical note resonating the form of particulate matter or is it akin to other time lines as opposed to dimensions. Just fodder for midnight mental wanderings...