Electric Universe

[Gold Bearer]

I happen to enjoy the juxtaposition. I imagine frequent snickers when he gives he full name and being exceptionally dour (even for a dwarf) because of it!

GB: "You mean Brownbeard <snicker>"
WB: "GRRRR." <snarls with jaw locked, knuckles on hand holding axe turn white>
GB: "Pardon, Mr. Whitebeard, sir!"

I ain't affraid of no colourblind dwraf.

[el_flesh]

Wow, man.
You've done nothing BUT evade arguments.
I certainly DON'T have the time nor the inclination to write a precis of all the material I have covered on real E&M, vs your fantasy EU. You get a link that has the info there. If you can't read it and pick it out, that's your loss, not mine.
I gave answers WITH references; you make a blunt statement how they're wrong and repeat your question.
You're an *Play-Doh factory*.

You get the same treatment in return.

You claim Scientists believe things = you don't understand what Science even is. You're out on a limb dude; you're out in orbit with the first KBO.
If you're not going to put up referenced proof, then there's nothing to add to this discussion. Wallow in your mistake - which thanks to you, I have realized is far more tragic than ignorance; because you do have some brains about you.

______________________

P.S. some weeks later: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... alaxy.html
yaaaaa, THAT would be how you form stars without eckeltricity.

[Gold Bearer]

Wow, man.
You've done nothing BUT evade arguments.

You've must be joking! I've posted countless points that have been ignored without evading a single point made by you or anyone else. Give a single example of an argument that I've evaded! Do you really think you're going to get away with blatantly lying when it's right here for anyone to read? Let's recap. On page 2 of this topic I asked four very simple questions.

Why does the interior of the sun appear cooler than the exterior and how can heat be coming from the interior if there's no convection?

How does the solar wind accelerate against gravity as it moves away from the sun? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

Why do comets flare up at distances from the sun that aren't anywhere near hot enough to melt them? What provides the energy? Is it nuclear, gravitational or electrical?

How do nebulae, galaxies and the large scale filamentary structure of the universe get their intricate and highly regular shapes through gravitational processes? What force is capable of produce those structures?

Your next post completely ignored these points and when I pointed this out your post after that ignored three of the questions but did at least make an extremely humourous attempt at answering the fourth by including what has to be the most hilarious instance of somebody trying to argue a point about a subject that they don't have even a basic grasp of that I've ever seen.

The interior of a star would appear darker if a) the photons are being absorbed in the chain reaction that is fusion...pretty much what we expect. b) the surface brightness washes out the interior details like any other over-exposed photograph. d'uh.

You think the reason why the interior of the sun appears cooler than the surface is either because fusion is absorbing rather than releasing electrons or because the less bright surface is creating glare that makes the more brightly lit interior look dark?

And we also got this.

Why would the Gas Giants replicate the solar system among their moons, following the same gravitational rules of stable planetary orbital distances? Why does Saturn and Uranus also do it with their respective ring systems? For an "electrical" system, they sure do correspond to gravitational binding to an uncanny degree!

So presumably you think that if there were electrical currents flowing through the solar system then gravity would stop working.

And we got this.

Since all rocketry needs to take into account the gravity of Jupiter, especially when going to the moon or farther, I rest the case that every planet DOES affect every other with its gravity. Why would that need to be done at all in your electric system?

Completely missing the point that the planets orbits are unaffected by the gravitational influence that they should be exerting on one another so there must be a stabilising electro-magnetic influence that corrects the gravitational influence in the first sentence and questioning why there would be a gravitational influence at all in the second sentence, again implying that you're under the impression that gravity somehow stops working in the presence of an electrical current. Why would an electrical current have any affect on the gravitational force?

I then called you out in my next post for avoiding my questions and listed them again with other points as a list of ten questions and you did eventually actually attempt to address these arguments.

1. What force do you think is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the sun? Do you think it's gravity, one of the nuclear forces, electromagnetism or some undiscovered force? Those are your only four choices.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08mar_solarwind/
EXPLAINED. P.S.: You don't get to command what the explanations can be.

You really need to stop doing that. If you can't put up an augment of your own then just say so. Stop relying on external sources to make your points for you. How do you explain a force overpowering the gravitation pull of the sun and accelerating the solar wind away from it?

The explanation you linked to is that ion waves moving along magnetic field lines accelerate the solar wind. That requires an electric current because how the hell else could there be a sustained magnetic field to energise the ions and allow them to transfer that energy to the solar wind to accelerate it? The solar wind is positively charge so the much simpler explanation is that it's accelerated by an electric field. Also I don't think the ion waves/beams would explain how the soar wind keeps on accelerating well outside the orbit of Jupiter.

2. What force do you think is responsible for correcting the gravitational disturbances of the planets on each other? Same four choices.

Timespace being warped by massive objects. Like Einstein PROVED, and has NOT been *disproven*, but, in fact, UPHELD: Weinberg, Steven (1972). Gravitation and cosmology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 194.
EXPLAINED. P.S.: Your declaration of it being disproven without reference = bullshit. Also, why would such objects need "correction"? Don't you know what inertia means?

All general relativity has ever been able to prove is that it gives a slightly more accurate description of gravity than Newton did. I find it hilarious that you're so against the concept of space being able to carry a charge but have no problem at all with it being bendable. General relativity has been disproved by the measurements of the position of light from stars that pass close to the sun but outside of it's atmosphere, by the gravitational singularities it predicts that can't exist because it would mean that objects both can and can't escape from a black hole depending on your frame of reference and by the demonstration that the way it's formulated isn't mathematically self consistent.

Anyway, none of this in any way addresses the question. You've completely evaded the point. Even putting anything resembling common sense aside and assuming general relativity is an accurate description of gravity (it is almost completely accurate at the scale of the solar system anyway), what force is responsible for correcting the gravitational influences of the planets and moons in the solar system on all the other planets and moons in the solar system and keeping the system stabilised in what would others be a system that only lasts a matter of centuries?

"Also, why would such objects need "correction"? Don't you know what inertia means?" This is hilarious! You think inertia provides some kind of self correction system for a planet's orbit. They need correction to maintain a stable orbit because without it the gravitational pull of the planets on each other would make the solar system fly apart within a matter of centuries and it's been around for much longer than that.

3. Same choices again, what force do you believe is responsible for the shapes of galaxies that exactly mimic the shapes produced in labs by running a strong electrical current through plasma?

The force that I KNOW shapes Galaxies: "gas molecules can collide, and do it all the time. These collisions can transfer energy and angular momentum. The energy can be turned into other kinds of energy, which can escape, through radiation, galactic winds etc., and as energy escapes, the gas cools and settles down into a lower energy configuration. The gas' angular momentum, however, is harder to transfer out of the galaxy, so this is more or less conserved. The result - a collisional system with low energy but a relatively high angular momentum - is the typical thin disk of a spiral galaxy. (Something similar, but not perfectly analogous, happens in the formation of protoplanetary disks) ...But the large majority of stars are formed in the gas after it has settled into the disk, and so the large majority of stars will be found in the same disk. - Thriveth, PhD student, astronomy.

Again, a complete evasion of the question. I already said that gravity can create sheriods, it's obvious. It's the only shape gravity can create. That only explains the disk shape. That's not the issue. What force do you believe is responsible for organising the matter inside a galactic disk into the barbed, spiral armed galaxies that we observe? This is one of the shapes that plasma adopts when an electrical current is passes through it:
Galaxy-simulation-600x225.jpgThat's from a computer simulation. And then there's the shape of nebulae like these:
Red-Square-Nebula.jpg771px-Red_Square_Nebula.jpgGravity can't do that!

This has to be the best evidence for large scale electrical currents. Those shapes can't possibly be made through gravity alone, but can be made when an electrical current passes through rotating plasma as has been actually demonstrated in labs, not in theory, but actually demonstrated.

4. And same choices once more, what force is responsible for organising stars that are in the process of forming into strings that are thousands of lightyears long?

You mean the Jeans instability that also forms in raindrops? The behavior of self gravitating clumps of gas?

No I'm not talking about accretion. I'm talking about the way stars form in strings (Birkeland currents) that are tens of lightyears in length.
Herschel-links-star-forma-022.jpgapex-star-forming-filament-taurus.jpg

This was expressly prodicted by the electic universe model and just like all its other predictions to date has now been varified.

5. Oh, one more, I forgot all about this. What force do you think is responsible for the recently discovered lining up of the nebulae close to the galactic core so that they're all aligned with the electrical current flow proposed by he EU model?

Might be #4 answer as well. If you have PROOF otherwise, please put it up. If you don't, your claim is nothing more than an ASSertion.

Your wit dazzles me. Bizarre Alignment of Planetary Nebulae. ESO, Garching, Germany. Published: September 4, 2013 http://www.eso.org/public/archives/rele ... o1338a.pdf

This can't be explained in the absence of a strong electrical current!

6. Why is the sun so much hotter at the corona than at the surface if the sun's power is driven internally?

Because of magnetohydrodynamic waves measured by ROSA : Nature Communications, 2012, Richard Morto / Also photosphere derived plasma: De Pontieu, B. et al. Science 331, 55-58 (2011)

That's not an answer! What causes the corona to be millions of degrees C hotter than the 6000C surface if the sun is heated internally?

The idea that stars are powered by nuclear fusion is not science. It has no observational evidence supporting it and nothing to suggest that it's even possible for nuclear fusion to provide a stable source of energy. So we've got a purely theoretical mechanism for an energy source that's highly in doubt of being capable of supplying any energy despite vast amounts of money thrown at it for over 65 years but providing no indication that nuclear fusion can even be used as a source of energy, and if it can, the only star that we can observe well enough to test the idea is millions of degrees hotter in the upper atmosphere than it is at its surface and much cooler than that below the surface.

7. Why is the neutrino count about 1% of what was predicted if the nuclear fusion isn't less than 1% what was predicted?

It's called "Neutrino Oscillation" and it's been put forward after 2002 - so I see why you would not know of it. Arthur B. McDonald, Joshua R. Klein and David L. Wark, 'Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem', Scientific American, vol. 288, no. 4 (April 2003), pp. 40–49 P.S. : It has ~ nothing to do with electricity.

I know what the official explanation is. There's an official explanation for most of the failures of the standard model. There has to be. When there's something unexplained scientists try to explain it, obviously. The question is which explanation is more plausible. The neutrino count is so low because the nuclear fusion is so low or the ad hoc explanation of neutrinos that conveniently oscillate so that we can't detect them? What causes them to oscillate?

This is a prime example of a failed and marginalised prediction of the standard model. There's only 1% of the neutrinos needed so instead of recognising it a failure of the standard model they claim that the neutrinos are there but are conveniently undetectable and for some reason unexplained reason they now apparent are oscillate on the journey from the sun.

8. What mechanism is responsible for the overturning of convection on the sun in the area of sunspots.

Tangled magnetic fields as the equator spins faster than the poles. You mean you never read that? I read it in my youth. Before High School. The explanation hasn't changed in decades.

Which brings up the questions of what cause the equatorial super rotation and how can there even be a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current? Anyway tangled magnetic fields explain the sunspots themselves but once again you've completely avoided the actual question. What causes the sunspots to show that the interior of the sun is cooler than the exterior if it's powered from within? Convection isn't present in the only place we can check so what causes this lack of convection and why is it assumed that heat radiates way from the core if we know that doesn't happen in the only places that we can see deeper into the sun?

A star that's supposedly heated from within that gets progressively cooler the closer to the core you get in the only three regions we can observe and powered by an energy source that's never been shown to work. Shenanigans!

9. The Ibex mission was funded on the bases thirty predictions about the heliospheric boundary conditions, all of which failed but were completely in line with what the EU models predicted. "The models that have been thought to predict what should happen are all incorrect." - Stamatios Krimigis, Physicist, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system was exactly what the electric universe model predicted and so was the presence of exited neutral atoms. These have absolutely no explanation using the standard model. I presume you must think that the lack of a bow shock at the edge of the solar system which was predicted by the electrical model and has no explanation in the standard model was a lucky guess? There's also been a concentration of energetic neutral atoms detected outside the solar system which was also predicted by modeling the solar system as an electrical circuit. Another fluke I suppose? If you read the reports they all say how shocked they were to find the things that were expected and expressly predicted by EU proponents. There's no bow shock because the solar system sits in a larger electrical environment so the charged particles keep on accelerating after they reach the edge of the solar system. The build up of energetic neutral atoms was an even more impressive prediction. They're caused by the fact that positrons moving in the opposite direction to the electrons can't travel around the circuit so they build up and recombine with the electrons coming the other way to produce energised electrically neutral atoms. What's your explanation?

9) Educate yourself: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ibe ... M3E2tXF_-k

Every time you do that you're just hand waving and admitting that you don't know. You're relying on people not having the time or motivation to read the links and just assume that you've answered the issue. That's not going to fly. Provide a reference to support what you're saying by all means but at least try to say something first. The fact is the Ibex mission confirmed predictions made the electrical model of the solar system that the standard model has no explanation for and mainstream science has been forced to admit that there ideas about how the interface between the solar system and interstellar space work were completely wrong. The is no bow shock. This was expressly predicted by the electrical model and an even more impressive prediction was the accumulation of energetic neutral atoms outside the heliosphere.

Why did you give a link to the information that I was referring to (the information that proves one of the EU's predictions correct) as a counter argument? That mission showed the electrical interpretation of the solar system gave an accurate description of the edge of the heliosphere, something the standard model completely failed to do.

10. And besides all of that, given that we now know just how much magnetics is involved in the universe on large scales and it's physically impossible to produce a sustained magnetic field in the absence of an electrical current because they're two different manifestations of the exactly the same process (that's why it's called the electromagnetic force), how can anyone with even an ounce of scientific honesty claim that there are no electrical currents in space?

10) BECAUSE AT 1M BETWEEN SINGLE PARTICLES, THERE'S NOTHING...NOTHING.... TO CARRY A CHARGE! D'uh.

There's less than 1M between single particles in the vicinity of Birkeland currents because plasma is highly magnetic and gets attracted to a charge which allows for a stronger current, which then produced a stronger magnetic field and attracts even more plasma allowing for an even stronger current which then attracts more plasma and so on. Treble d'uh, no backsies.

You don't have to go far to find that electricity can and does flow through space. In 2012 it was discovered that the Van Allen radiation belts are electrified and carry more than a million volts, enough to accelerate electrons to nearly the speed of light. They don't like to talk about it. That's how easy it is to prove the that the electrical model works, just go a few miles out. The electric universe model has already been proven and accepted, it's now just a question of degree. The mainstream has finally realised that electrical currents in space are a reality and we're now starting to see official electrical explanations for previously unexplained observations. They're trying to gradually introduce it through the back door hoping that people don't really notice a major shift. They won't be able to get away with it because the EU model has too much support and enough people know what's really going on. The biggest issue that they won't be able to try sweeping under the carpet is how the sun and all stars are powered.

You've avoided most of my points and you've completely misunderstood most of the ones you have tried to argue against. Now give a single example of an argument that I've evaded!

So many attributes of the sun, the solar system, star formation patterns, galaxy structures and the universe on every scale shows that it's electric. The only people who deny it are the people who just believe what they're told if it comes from a source that they trust without any thought or understanding of what the evidence actually says. That's not reason, that's faith! Not only is there no evidence for a nuclear sun (in fact there's evidence that refutes it) but it's never been show in principle that it's even possible for nuclear fusion to provide a sustained source of energy. They've been trying for 65 years and they're still no closer. The nuclear model fails as a contender before you even look at the sun and all it's characteristics that can't be explained by a nuclear core. Why would something powered internally get cooler the deeper in you go. There's literally nothing to support the idea that nuclear fusion powers, or even can in theory power a star. Even if it did it would power one with magically oscillating neutrinos that was cooler on the inside, just like there's nothing to support galaxies formed by gravitation and even if that were possible it wouldn't create galaxies with exactly the same barbed twin spiral armed shape that you get when an electrical current moves through plasma. The atmosphere is the hottest part, the surface is millions of degrees cooler and the interior in the only places we can see are much cooler than that. It gets cooler the deeper you go, so it's powered from an external source of energy. It has huge magnetic fields that can't possibly exist without an electrical current. We have have beautifully shaped nebulae aligned with the orientation of the galaxy that houses then, galaxy shapes that can't be reproduced by gravity and a large scale universal structure that actually shows the Birkeland currents. How obvious does it have to be?

You haven't provided a single counter argument. All you've done is posted links to other people describing something that you don't understand. You're basing your assumptions about the correct model on which sources you trust the most assuming that if it contradicts the official story then it can't be true, but with no understanding of mainstream science actually works. It's impossible to have a debate with you because you know virtually nothing about the subject matter. There's nothing wrong with not knowing but don't try pretending that you do by relying on external links that don't even address the issue raised in the hope that an explanation of the parts that aren't in dispute will be enough to sidestep a point that you either don't understand or know you can't refute. Nobody who thinks the glare of something dimmer can obscure the light of something brighter or uses capital letters to attempt to make a point like a five year old deserves to be taken seriously anyway. I really hope your martial arts is better than your level of understanding about this topic and your critical thinking as well as your debating and communication skills because they suck donkey arse.

I certainly DON'T have the time nor the inclination to write a precis of all the material I have covered on real E&M, vs your fantasy EU. You get a link that has the info there. If you can't read it and pick it out, that's your loss, not mine.
I gave answers WITH references; you make a blunt statement how they're wrong and repeat your question.

You've given no answers at all! It's not just the time and inclination you lack, it's knowledge, intelligence and anything remotely approaching common sense. I've explained why the nuclear model doesn't work and all you can do is give links to other people explaining the details of a falsified model. What good is that? You haven't addressed arguments, you've just ignored them. You did have one attempt but then gave up.

You're an *Play-Doh factory*.

It's easy to be brave online isn't it? Don't call me names from a distance.

You claim Scientists believe things = you don't understand what Science even is. You're out on a limb dude; you're out in orbit with the first KBO.

Science is built on beliefs! fraggle sake, get a clue. Your ignorance is of how science works is a joke. As soon as evidence is interpreted into a descriptive model it's a belief. The sun's atmosphere is is millions of degrees C but its surface is only a few thousand degrees C and the interior in the only places we can see is much cooler than that but they still believe the sun is heated from within. There's no evidence for this belief, all the evidence shows that it's heated by an external power source. There's hardly any detectable neutrinos and it's never been shown that nuclear fusion is capable of producing enough energy to even contain the reaction yet it's supposed to provide enough energy to not only do that but also have enough spare left over energy to power a star. The sun has intense magnetic fields which are impossible without the presence of an electric current. They've now detected what they call magnetic ropes (Birkeland currents) connecting the sun and Earth, causing the auroras. And it just goes on and on, comet discharges too far away from the sun to be caused by warming, nebulae shapes and alignments, galactic formations that can't be explained with gravity, the large scale fillamentary structure of the universe, lightning that's been proven to originate from outside the atmosphere and probably most convincing of all, galaxy shapes that can't be produced by gravity but can be exactly reproduced by running a current through plasma, and this is just the tip of the ice berg. The EU model isn't rejected by the mainstream because it lacks merit, there's never been a model in physics that's had anywhere near even half as much evidence behind it. The only things left to base a gravitational dominant universe and nuclear sun model on are blind belief or blatant deception.

If you're not going to put up referenced proof, then there's nothing to add to this discussion. Wallow in your mistake - which thanks to you, I have realized is far more tragic than ignorance; because you do have some brains about you.

You are an absolute scream. What mistake should I be wallowing in? As if having no understanding of the topic you're attempting to discuss and having to rely on external sources to make your case for you somehow makes your case stronger than mine. Good one.

P.S. some weeks later: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... alaxy.html
yaaaaa, THAT would be how you form stars without eckeltricity.

Seriously wtf is wrong with you? That link has absolutely zero relevance to the discussion because it has nothing at all to do with the issue. Nothing in that article even mentions how galaxies form their barbed spiral arms, let alone attempts to give an explanation. How and why do stars form along strings if there's no current? It's bad enough that you continue to rely on links so other people can do the talking for you because you don't have the knowledge or the intelligence to do it yourself but to post links that don't have anything at all to do with the actual points is just pathetic. I can't believe I've wasting my time on someone like you. Don't call me names again unless your willing to come and say them to my face. I'll tell you where to find me if you like. I could do with a laugh.

[el_flesh]

You've evaded them by not putting up actual facts. You continue to "ask questions" but do not put up the facts to answer them, and ignore the counter facts, such as an electric Earth would have PLASMA pouring through North and South pole, as mentioned elsewhere.
I did not "ignore" your points, I referred them to thorough answers already documented elsewhere by people more competent in Physics than I am. As I said before, ignore them at your own peril.
Einstein's mass warping spacetime (gravity) was PROVEN almost 100 years ago. In space, inertia works until acted on by an outside force, = planets needing no "correction", since they are travelling along a STRAIGHT line through warped space.
In short, if you want to follow your crackpot DISPROVEN hypothesis, go ahead - it is your loss.

"each other would make the solar system fly apart within a matter of centuries

....crackpottttt...

This was expressly prodicted by the electic universe model and just like all its other predictions to date has now been varified.

Only inside your crackpot hypothesis has it been "verified". Not in any other text book I have ever seen, nor in any of the EXPERIMENTS I have had to do in Physics labs. I'm pretty sure the Universe didn't suddenly become electricity based in the past 25 years and I missed it.

All of your points are just repetition. I am not repeating myself. The links are there because I am not a Physicist by trade, and I am sure you aren't either; learn them or ignore them, I really don't care if you want to be out in orbit with Pluto. New Horizons will be zipping by you in a few months.

Dude, I say you're a crackpot because you ARE. Not to call you names, or make you look small, or make you feel bad about yourself. You're simply out in orbit, and I'm letting other readers know this. I don't fear you, either. And as martial artists, neither of us should degrade to that. But I will say this: if your electric fantasy should miraculously (because that is what a 40 year old crackpot hypothesis would take) be proven correct (LOLLL!!! -sorry couldn't resist) by SCIENCE - then and only then, would I champion it, and retract all I have said about your being a crackpot, and put on a dunce cap myself. I have even LESS fear about that than I do about you, if it were possible.

[Gold Bearer]

You've evaded them by not putting up actual facts.

I've put up plenty of facts. There's more than enough to support the EU and more than I've mentioned. There's lots in my previous post. Just denying them isn't a counter argument.

You continue to "ask questions" but do not put up the facts to answer them, and ignore the counter facts, such as an electric Earth would have PLASMA pouring through North and South pole, as mentioned elsewhere.

You mean like the plasma in glow mode that we see entering the magnetosphere at the poles as the auroras?

I did not "ignore" your points, I referred them to thorough answers already documented elsewhere by people more competent in Physics than I am. As I said before, ignore them at your own peril.

I'm not ignoring them. I was already aware of almost all the information you've linked but most of it has nothing to do with the actual points raised. You're just giving links to things that describe what I've mentioned without addressing the actual points that I've made about them.

Einstein's mass warping spacetime (gravity) was PROVEN almost 100 years ago. In space, inertia works until acted on by an outside force, = planets needing no "correction", since they are travelling along a STRAIGHT line through warped space.

How many times do you have to be told that general relativity has not been proven correct and has in fact been disproved in multitude of ways? You've even been told be other people in this topic that it's a well known fact that it doesn't work. It's used as an approximation in the same way that Newtonian equations are, gr just happens to give an even more accurate description but it's still very straight forward to show that it's not correct. Quantum mechanics disproves it for a start, I've already explained why it isn't mathematically self consistent and if it were true it would mean that light would be bent around the sun outside of its atmosphere and the light from the centre of the galaxy would be lensed and neither of these effects happen. Lensing does happen in some places but it's not like gr predicts. I'm not saying it's wrong about objects following straight paths through flat spacetime but that's just the same as saying they follow curved paths through flat spacetime, there's no distinction because there's no measurable difference between the two statements even in principle so they're both subjective viewpoints. Either way objects follow curved paths through spacetime due to gravitation.

In short, if you want to follow your crackpot DISPROVEN hypothesis, go ahead - it is your loss.

It's never been disproved, no matter how many capital letters you use. Another blatant lie. Just a false statement with nothing to support it.

"each other would make the solar system fly apart within a matter of centuries....crackpottttt...

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. Do you understand that the planets exert a small gravitational pull on each other? Do you understand that the effect of this would grow over time? Do you understand that without another force to counteract it, it would eventually lead the planets orbits changing? Do you understand that this is what creates an unstable system? When a simulation is run that includes the gravitation pull exerted on the planets by each other the system only last for mere centuries. There has to be something counteracting the gravity exerted on each planet by the other planets. The clue is in the way the planets are spaced, it's not random. They orbit like electrons around a nucleus (in that there's only certain evenly spaced diameters in which they can have a stable orbit). This has nothing to do with gravity, how could it? It's the diameters where the electrical charge changes from a more positive charge to a more negative one. It creates an attractive force towards that region.

This was expressly prodicted by the electic universe model and just like all its other predictions to date has now been varified.Only inside your crackpot hypothesis has it been "verified". Not in any other text book I have ever seen, nor in any of the EXPERIMENTS I have had to do in Physics labs. I'm pretty sure the Universe didn't suddenly become electricity based in the past 25 years and I missed it.

This was a beautifully simple prediction that could never have been expected in the standard model.

All of your points are just repetition. I am not repeating myself. The links are there because I am not a Physicist by trade, and I am sure you aren't either; learn them or ignore them, I really don't care if you want to be out in orbit with Pluto. New Horizons will be zipping by you in a few months.

I'm repeating myself because you haven't been able to refute them.

Dude, I say you're a crackpot because you ARE. Not to call you names, or make you look small, or make you feel bad about yourself. You're simply out in orbit, and I'm letting other readers know this.

No you say it because you can provide no counter argument. Whenever somebody is backed into a corner with no reasonable argument so support their positions the only option left to them is label the other person a crackpot and hope that people who don't know enough about the evidence supporting the alternate model buy it. It's an act of desperation and that's why you used it no less than six times in your last short post. Crackpot ideas go nowhere. They usually have a single person trying to claim that it's true and misunderstanding what they think they've figured out. Why do you think this one and no other has gained and continues to gain so much support?

I don't fear you, either.

Because you're on the other side of a computer screen and don't have to face me. That's very brave of you.

And as martial artists, neither of us should degrade to that.

You should have thought of that before you starting calling me names. Personally I don't think your an instructor, I doubt your even a martial artist. I think you're completely full of *lemony goodness*.

But I will say this: if your electric fantasy should miraculously (because that is what a 40 year old crackpot hypothesis would take) be proven correct (LOLLL!!! -sorry couldn't resist) by SCIENCE - then and only then, would I champion it, and retract all I have said about your being a crackpot, and put on a dunce cap myself. I have even LESS fear about that than I do about you, if it were possible.

You mean you'll accept it when the mainstream endorses it. People like you are why they can get away with this crap in the first place. They don't have to change or put up evidence to support their bullshit models because people just believe what they say because they ignore the evidence and only look at the source when deciding who to believe. It's not really their fault, it's people like you who give them no incentive to behave like real scientists should. It's not surprising that they don't like to admit that they were wrong when they're under no real pressure to, especially considering all the public money they've wasted chasing mistaken assumptions. It's interesting to look back at how the standard model was formed. When there's two or more competing models instead of pursuing both they always make a decision about which one to publicly claim as correct because they don't like admitting that they don't know which is correct because it would mean less funding. They have to pick one and go with it and if the wrong one is chosen then it's extremely difficult to get rid of it. This is exactly what happened over a century ago with the electric vs nuclear sun models. There was anywhere near as much data supporting the electrical model and refuting the nuclear one back then. If the same decision where made now there could only be one winner.

Your whole position is based on one assumption, that if it were true it would have been accepted by the mainstream. What has mainstream science done to earn this trust? They continually manipulate data to fit existing models and ignore any evidence that refutes them. The only way to become an successful scientist within the mainstream is to expand on already accepted ideas. Anyone who puts forward any kind of possible alternative is immediately branded as a crank and expelled regardless of how much evidence they have to support an alternative view. This is not science.

[el_flesh]

I've linked to plenty of facts. There's more than enough to destroy the Eklektric U and more than I've mentioned. There's lots of links to them in my previous posts. Just denying them WITHOUT PROOF isn't a counter argument. You have to have demonstrable PROOF. Just claiming what electricity does without equations and observational data to fit them - which, by the way your so-called "conspiracy" of modern Physics DOES - is either bullshit, if you know what you're talking about, or crackpottery, if you think you do but you don't.

I don't see any claims of yours to be a Physicist. In fact, while I have said that I had the basic Uni courses of Newtonian Mechanics, Waves and Optics, Electricity and Magnetism, (each being a 3 credit 30 hrs of lecture and 20 hrs of lab=1 credit course); I have heard nothing about your experience and credentials in this area. Being a bit more familiar than your average layman, but no specialist nor professional by any shakes, I referred and continue to refer you to those who have MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE of Physics than I. Yes, they could be making a mistake, but the vast probability is that they know more than you. If you haven't done at minimum advanced course work in Physics, then don't claim to understand fully what's going on. I have understood after derivation and explaining by the prof, GR equations. I had to answer them for my exams. I have every confidence in their applicability because the lab work demonstrated that. You have demonstrated nothing. Only posted pictures and made claims. In fact, you have linked far less info than I have.

You mean like the plasma in glow mode that we see entering the magnetosphere at the poles as the auroras?

No, I don't mean planetary magnetism interacting with ions of the solar wind; which happens every time there is a Mass Coronal Ejection aimed our way. I mean lightning bolt electricity, as was mentioned in one of those links, and I think, a more Physics experienced poster in here.

Gravitational Lensing by Galaxies is said to be exactly how GR predicts. I haven't gone into the actual figures or papers written on it, but I think I have MORE confidence in the reports of Phil Plait and other Astronomers than yourself. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/grav_lensing_history
When you reduce this to conspiracy theory, you LOSE.

...unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

Once again, where is your experimental evidence disproving GR? Anecdotes of insistence don't cut it.

(edit: and by the way, the planets don't get "perturbed" because they are already in gravitational RESONANCE. With the SUN. Which has far more GRAVITY than the planets. Combined. While changes can and do occur on the scale of HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years, they aren't catastrophic.)

If I were backed into a corner with no way out, it would be because the position I advocate had been proven to be WRONG. As I said, any Scientist would then investigate and champion what has been proven right. This is exactly what I do anytime I am proven wrong, and it has happened before. You, however, have FAILED to do so. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/nanoflares.html Now that one of your main proponents has been proven WRONG (again), you will continue to ignore it or else claim it's a conspiracy. You sure wouldn't admit that you must have championed a WRONG idea but now you know better! That's another reason why you're a crackpot - counter evidence doesn't matter to you.
And by the way, the caps are to draw attention to the key ideas. Not to out-shout you; for that is not proof.

As for the personal stuff, I don't care, at all, what you estimate or not; I have no need to prove anything to you. I lose no sleep over it. Go fart at a hurricane for all your estimation does to me!
I will say this: your shuto uke is extremely wide and circular in your sig video. That makes it slow. I teach the elbow close to the chest; it's alot faster. Try it.

In short, you're a crackpot NOT because I have been "backed into a corner", nor because you go against conventional Physics, but because you do it from the position of a non specialist, a conspiracy theorist (a big red flag right there), AND you have no equations that predict and can be verified with data. That is called CRACKPOT, and there is an index for this kind of thing.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Have fun racking up the high score.

[Gold Bearer]

I've linked to plenty of facts. There's more than enough to destroy the Eklektric U and more than I've mentioned. There's lots of links to them in my previous posts. Just denying them WITHOUT PROOF isn't a counter argument.

You're repeating exactly what I said. The difference is people can see that I have validated my points and all you've done is give links to articles that don't even address the points I've made.

You have to have demonstrable PROOF.

There's no such thing.

Just claiming what electricity does without equations and observational data to fit them - which, by the way your so-called "conspiracy" of modern Physics DOES - is either bullshit, if you know what you're talking about, or crackpottery, if you think you do but you don't.

Equations for electricity? Do you think the existence of the attributes of electricity themselves used in the EU are under dispute? There's lots of observational data that supports these claims. I've shown you images of them and given links to sources that actually have something to do with the issues under discussion. The difference here is that I've only provided them as reference and not relied on them to make my arguments for me.

I don't see any claims of yours to be a Physicist. In fact, while I have said that I had the basic Uni courses of Newtonian Mechanics, Waves and Optics, Electricity and Magnetism, (each being a 3 credit 30 hrs of lecture and 20 hrs of lab=1 credit course); I have heard nothing about your experience and credentials in this area. Being a bit more familiar than your average layman, but no specialist nor professional by any shakes, I referred and continue to refer you to those who have MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGE of Physics than I. Yes, they could be making a mistake, but the vast probability is that they know more than you.

I never even finished high school. You can't discredit a valid point by attacking the source of that point. It doesn't work like that.

If you haven't done at minimum advanced course work in Physics, then don't claim to understand fully what's going on.

As if a person can't possibly understand something unless they've got a certificate to say they do. The universe works the same way regardless of qualifications. It doesn't mystically reveal its secrets to people who learn it a certain way.

I have understood after derivation and explaining by the prof, GR equations. I had to answer them for my exams. I have every confidence in their applicability because the lab work demonstrated that.

I already said it's a good a good approximation. By that logic I can prove newtons version of gravity right by measuring the position of the planets.

You have demonstrated nothing. Only posted pictures and made claims. In fact, you have linked far less info than I have.

Because I like to make the case in my own words. Those pictures are images showing that stars form along strings, that's hardly irrelevant.

You mean like the plasma in glow mode that we see entering the magnetosphere at the poles as the auroras?

No, I don't mean planetary magnetism interacting with ions of the solar wind; which happens every time there is a Mass Coronal Ejection aimed our way. I mean lightning bolt electricity, as was mentioned in one of those links, and I think, a more Physics experienced poster in here.

So you said plasma but what you meant was lightning? Are you under the impression that they're the same thing?

Gravitational Lensing by Galaxies is said to be exactly how GR predicts. I haven't gone into the actual figures or papers written on it, but I think I have MORE confidence in the reports of Phil Plait and other Astronomers than yourself. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/grav_lensing_history

Do you know what gravitational lensing is as described by GR? Why isn't it everywhere? It should happen whenever light masses to to a massive body and it doesn't. There's lots of mass at the centre of the galaxy but no lensing.

When you reduce this to conspiracy theory, you LOSE.

Because people in positions of authority are always such paragons of honesty and integrity.

...unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

Once again, where is your experimental evidence disproving GR? Anecdotes of insistence don't cut it.

Mathematically: The ricci tensor has to be set to zero for the equations to work which can only describe a universe without mass and the definition of R in the equations isn't self consistent. Sometime in the radius of a 2-sphere sometimes it's the Schwarzschild and other times it describes the radius of Newtons escape velocity.

Practically: Gravitational lensing should be far more common and the path of light isn't bent around the sun outside of the corona.

Theoretically: GR predictions black holes in which objects both can and can't cross its event horizon depending on the frame of reference of the observer.

(edit: and by the way, the planets don't get "perturbed" because they are already in gravitational RESONANCE. With the SUN. Which has far more GRAVITY than the planets. Combined.

Over 99% of it in fact, or 98%, can't remember. It doesn't matter, gravitational resonance (lower case, it's not a bloody acronym) doesn't negate the influence of weaker gravity.

While changes can and do occur on the scale of HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years, they aren't catastrophic.)

Which shows that there must be a stabilising influence that provides a force to counteract the gravitational interactions, or they would be catastrophic in less than a thousand years.

If I were backed into a corner with no way out, it would be because the position I advocate had been proven to be WRONG. As I said, any Scientist would then investigate and champion what has been proven right.

That's the most naive statement you've made. Scientists generally champion whatever they need to to pay their bills. Only the true true scientists are willing to face persecution by their peers and attacks on their character for what they actually believe. There's not very many of those.

This is exactly what I do anytime I am proven wrong, and it has happened before. You, however, have FAILED to do so. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/nanoflares.html Now that one of your main proponents has been proven WRONG (again), you will continue to ignore it or else claim it's a conspiracy.

You've ignored far more points than I have. I'm glad you linked to that article. It provides a perfect example of the problem and why it's so hard for a competing idea to gain any real traction, as well as why so many of your attempted counter arguments aren't valid.

...But no direct evidence of the nanoflares existed until now.

Observations from the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope (XRT) and Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer (EIS) instruments aboard Hinode reveal that ultra-hot plasma is widespread in solar active regions. The XRT measured plasma at 10 million degrees K, and the EIS measured plasma at 5 million degrees K. "These temperatures can only be produced by impulsive energy bursts,"says Klimchuk, who presented the findings on August 6 at the International Astronomical Union General Assembly meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

"These temperatures can only be produced by impulsive energy bursts." They're making the assumption that the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor and interpreting the data from that point of view. This isn't in any way evidence validating that assumption. If your the only explanation you're willing to entertain is that temperatures that high can only be explained by using your preferred model then don't pretend that it evidence that the model is correct. That's circular reasoning. Electricity is a far simpler explanation for the super heated atmosphere of the sun and it has the benefit of simultaneously explaining in one swoop lots of other aspects of the sun that are puzzling from the perspective of the standard model.

You sure wouldn't admit that you must have championed a WRONG idea but now you know better! That's another reason why you're a crackpot - counter evidence doesn't matter to you.

Of course it does and I would gladly admit that I was wrong if I thought I was, I only care about the truth of how it works. You haven't provided any counter evidence. You've barely been able to make a case.

And by the way, the caps are to draw attention to the key ideas. Not to out-shout you; for that is not proof.

It makes you look like a four year old. Try drawing attention to key ideas my making valid points and well reasoned arguments to support them.

I will say this: your shuto uke is extremely wide and circular in your sig video. That makes it slow. I teach the elbow close to the chest; it's alot faster. Try it.

The way I do it now isn't how I was taught. I can obviously still do it that way but I prefer practicing it with a more arcing motion because it's stronger and it increases the speed of the actual movement, even though it takes longer to complete the technique. It also makes an extremely cool whooshing sound as it cuts through the air.

In short, you're a crackpot NOT because I have been "backed into a corner", nor because you go against conventional Physics, but because you do it from the position of a non specialist, a conspiracy theorist (a big red flag right there), AND you have no equations that predict and can be verified with data. That is called CRACKPOT, and there is an index for this kind of thing.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Have fun racking up the high score.

You talk as if this is my theory. Other people within the EU community are specialists and do have mathematical models that describe and predict the electrical interactions that happen on all scales of the universe. I hope you realise that pracitally every successful theory was called a crackpot idea before it was accepted. What do you think people thought of reletivity before that was accepted? Length contraction, time dilation, curved spacetime? We have a crazy person. Calling the electic universe or its supporters crackpots isn't hurtful or clever, it's just making a very easy accusation and hoping it's enough to discredit an idea that you don't know how to refute.

I believe the EU model because it it explains far more using far less, it has a ton of evidence to back it up and it continues to make correct predictions. It has attracted its fair share of crackpot supporters who just want to see the establishment proved wrong but most of it's supporters are highly knowlegable people who are capable of thinking for themselves rather than deciding that only one source of information is valid and basing their whole understanding on the subject by working backwards from this misguided assumption.

Mainstream physics has now acknowledged the existence of electricity in space. That was always the main point. That doesn't mean that most of the specific EU interpretations have been accepted but that will gradually happen. I think it's the future but if you want to wait until it's established itself as officially correct so you can feel secure in your beliefs knowing that you can use people who have pieces of paper saying how clever they are then go ahead. You'd believe the sun was powered by fairy dust if they told you it was.

[cynthialee]

When I as a simple commoner look at the history of science and how things that do not fit the accepted theories they are mocked and derided, then I look at the arguments for the gravitational theory and the electric theory of the universe my gut tells me the electric universe model is likely right. The gravitational leaning dudes are reacting the same way as the proponents of the Phlogiston theory did when Oxygen was first brought up.
The thing that doesn't make sense is how vitriolic the rhetoric gets when people support the status quo. But we are just talking theory in both directions. Just because someone else has a different theory and does not respect your theory is not an attack on you personally. It is an assault on a theory, not an assault on a person.

[Anderas]

The problem is really that GB reaches more than a hundred points on the crackpot scale.

I stopped discussing as soon as the arguments had been replaced by personal attacks. It is him getting agressive far earlier than his counterparts.

He is argumenting as if electricity and particles with a charge are not a part of the standard model. In fact they are. They are right at the core. Period.

[Gold Bearer]

The thing that doesn't make sense is how vitriolic the rhetoric gets when people support the status quo. But we are just talking theory in both directions. Just because someone else has a different theory and does not respect your theory is not an attack on you personally. It is an assault on a theory, not an assault on a person.

He did start to attack me personally when he started the name calling. Crackpot to start with but I decided to let those go (any name calling is unacceptable in my opinion and just shows him to be a complete twat) but then he called me something that triggered the filter and that really pissed me off.

The problem is really that GB reaches more than a hundred points on the crackpot scale.

Let's see.

A -5 point starting credit.

I'm off to a good start.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

This one is completely unfair. That like saying 1 point for every point that you make that disagrees with the established model when that's the whole point. Besides the EU now has more than a "wide" enough support for the standard model to rack up an insane amount of points.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

El-flesh scores about 1000 on this one.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

And another 50, 000 here.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

And now surely brakes the world record on this index.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

I haven't done that.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

Oh dear Mr Flesh.

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

Maybe once, but only in response to someone else doing the same. That doesn't count.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

No.

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

I pointed out that I droped out. -10 points = -15

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

- 10 for emphasising that's it's not my theory and I didn't work on it at all?

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

No.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

No.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

No.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

No.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

Not really. I said that there are very few laws and lots of theories because you can't really prove a model right.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

No.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

I have great evidence that gr doesn't work but am a avid supporter of SR (despite so many EU supporters including the main physicist trying to argue against it, which makes me cringe), but okay, =10 points = -5

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

Crap, 5 points.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

:) No.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

No.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

No.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

No.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

No.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

No.

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

Definitely not.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

I've never even seen or heard anyone using that phrase.

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

No, but I like it.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

No.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

No.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

:)

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

No.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

No.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Oh, arse! Ah, not my work, and not really a conspiracy so much as a broken system. I think 20 points is fair. That puts me on 25.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

No.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

I wish but I'm not naive enough to think it will actually happen.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

It's provided lots of testable predictions and they continue to be accurate. This is in fact the most convincing aspect of the EU model.

I scored 25 points and el_flesh scored far more than I can count. That one about the capital letters was just too good.

I stopped discussing as soon as the arguments had been replaced by personal attacks. It is him getting agressive far earlier than his counterparts.

No, that's not true. If you look back I wasn't the first to become aggressive, it was a reaction to the type of posts others were making.

He is argumenting as if electricity and particles with a charge are not a part of the standard model. In fact they are. They are right at the core. Period.

Of course. I never suggested or implied in any way that standard model doesn't include electricity, how can it not? The point is that its influence on all scales is greatly understated by the mainstream, probably for a varity of reasons.