Dark Energy

[CoG]

All quoted by hecd2

Well you don’t seem to have a response for this. Just to remind you, the papers in question, which provide evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy are cited in, post no 21 of this thread. You said that the papers reach the wrong conclusions about the observations they report. Were just making it up?

You just don’t seem to get the point. There is no evidence for an invisible mass object. All of the papers jump to the conclusion that the effects that are seen are due to an invisible mass object. That conclusion completely overlooks the nature of gravity in GR. Any curvature of space may look like a mass object just as a mass object curves space. I have pointed this out before but you do no seem to understand GR.

Is there a point to any astrological observation? I don’t think so

sorry wrong word it should be astronomical.

Not so. A compact topology for the universe in which space has a positive curvature places objects on the surface of a hypersphere (which has a volume in four spatial dimensions - analogously an ordinary ball or 2-sphere is a closed surface in two dimensions enclosing a volume in three dimensions).

You do not understand the nature of dimensions. In the spatial dimension there are an unlimited number of directions. Of the unlimited number of dimensions there are only three directions that are independent from each other. These three directions may be of any orientation. Motion in the spatial direction is limited to the speed of light and only one direction at a time.

If you think there are more than three spatial dimensions please show where the fourth dimension of space fits.

The three spatial dimensions x,y, and z should be considered sub-dimensions of the major spatial dimension. Time must be thought of in the same manner as a major dimension. Just as with the spatial dimension there exist three sub-dimensions of time. The difference between major and sub-dimensions is that transition is not limited to one direction at a time and that transition in both dimensions may both be at a rate equal to the speed of light.

God created the universe with the Big Bang. That creation is not only of all that exist in the spatial universe but of time also. The only function that can take place in any dimension is movement (transition). All that we physically see or perceive is the result of transition.

Time is the result of our transition in the time dimension. The time dimension is all directions outward from the Big Bang. As in the spatial dimension there are an unlimited number of directions in the time dimensions as seen by the unlimited number of possible directions outward from the Big Bang. It is also seen that the transition in time has no effect on transition in the spatial dimension. Likewise transition in any spatial direction has no effect on time. No matter how you move or how fast you move you never leave the present time.

If you do not understand SR I will be happy to explain that to you.

I think this is meaningless - what about the time from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light? The recession of objects caused by the expansion of space is not limited by the speed of light, by the way.

All transitions in any dimension is limited to the speed of light.

The observation of the recession of objects is based on observation of redshift. This again is a case of jumping to the wrong conclusion about the cause of the redshift of distant objects. Redshift of distant objects is the result of the length of time a wave function has existed. This is the same cause for the CMB.

When a wave is created, each incremental part lies on a time radial from the Big Bang. Just as with all objects in the universe the distance between objects increase with distance from the Big Bang. Wave function also increases in length.

Of course my observations disagree with current belief but if you will compare these ideas against the others you will soon realize that these ideas answer many more questions. You make statements based on disagreements as proof. Stop accepting without thinking. If you think the geometry of the universe is based on open, closed, or flat please describe how we got from a point source, The Big Bang, to these other shapes or curves. If time is not the transition outward from the Big Bang then what is it and what direction is it coming from and going to.

I have given you a simple description that matches all observations and connects with reality at every point. From these basic ideas much more is able to be connected.

 

[bobzills]

You do not understand the nature of dimensions. In the spatial dimension there are an unlimited number of directions. Of the unlimited number of dimensions there are only three directions that are independent from each other. These three directions may be of any orientation. Motion in the spatial direction is limited to the speed of light and only one direction at a time.

If you think there are more than three spatial dimensions please show where the fourth dimension of space fits.

Mathematical Hilbert space can have an infinite number of dimensions, and in physics, string theory involves 10 or 11 dimensions, and in bosonic string theories there are 26 dimensions which come from the Polyakov equation. The 6 or 7 extra dimensions are described by the use of Calabi Yau spaces.

 

[mpb74]

To the OP,

I’ve belonged to an organization of men and women of different faiths, and also aetheist, where we speak of a higher power and the God of our own individual understandings. Some consider it their own amazing intellect, some a foam coffee cup. Some God, Allah, Buddha, or the amazon goddess of revenge. Beleiving in Christ in a vague, noncommittal way gave me hope, but left me empty, searching, and alone. While my membership has helped me attain a necessary state of equilibrium which needs to continue, I did not have a right relationship with God. I could not understand his will for me and his desire to steer my life on the proper course. I did not realize he created me with love, and wants me to loves him as any child loves their caring, nurturing parent.

I haven’t liked giving up my “freedom” for rules and regulations. But these rules are there to teach us how to live in conformity with God’s law and with the natural order of creation. However , in opposition to what I am taught by the powers that be in secular society and organizations, there is only objective truth, and that is found here in the Catholic Church. Catholic Church Teachings do not change. They are the truth, they cannot change. My wife and i let go of our last misgivings about Catholic teachings this week, despite our misgivings about possible consequences. The chips will fall where they may. And we have never felt freer. Human intellect only left me in despair and fear., I like following God’s will better, he’s probably a little smarter than I am. Dan

 

[bobzills]

. Catholic Church Teachings do not change. They are the truth, they cannot change.

I am not sure about this. It seems to me that Catholic teachings have changed on several diferent issues.

 

[mpb74]

You may be right, but my understanding is that Catholic teachings don’t change. I think that Moral teachings don’t change would be a more correct statement. If you bring up any particular teachings on the board, I am sure that someone more learned and articulate than I, would be able to document where one of us is off base. I do know as absolute fact however that truth doesn’t change with the times or the situation. And neither does Catholic faith or doctrine. I’m glad you brought it up though, as if I am going to post on these boards I need to back up any statements with documents. I am unable to do that so I may be best off reading threads instead of posting at this point. Thank You, and I appreciate the polite nature and tone of your statement/correction. Dan

 

[bobzills]

You may be right, but my understanding is that Catholic teachings don’t change. I think that Moral teachings don’t change would be a more correct statement. If you bring up any particular teachings on the board, I am sure that someone more learned and articulate than I, would be able to document where one of us is off base. I do know as absolute fact however that truth doesn’t change with the times or the situation. And neither does Catholic faith or doctrine. I’m glad you brought it up though, as if I am going to post on these boards I need to back up any statements with documents. I am unable to do that so I may be best off reading threads instead of posting at this point. Thank You, and I appreciate the polite nature and tone of your statement/correction. Dan

Perhaps the core teachings haven’t changed, but there have been changes which some people are characterising as either prudential or disciplinary, but there is not universal agreement on that.
Let me give you some examples:
Torture, slavery, marriage annulments, women’s headcovering in Church, women teaching in Church, capital punishment, profane rock and roll music during Mass, necessity of fasting during lent, Communion in the hand, filioque in the creed.

 

[EphelDuath]

This topic is disgusting. Science is a hoax? Scientists are too silly to see that if they can’t explain something, it must be God? I’m almost ashamed to be a member of this board right now.

Faith is separate from science. There’s a pretty good reason for theorizing dark energy, so don’t assume you’re smarter than scientists. If you try to explain every phenomenon in the universe on “God did it,” you’re back to Aristotelian physics and 300 B.C. mathematics.

I guarantee you that you don’t know more than the scientific community combined. Also remember that they aren’t “Satanic atheists who hate God,” they’re people observing and speculating on the mechanics of the universe as they see it. Many scientists are Catholic.

 

[ricmat]

Science is a hoax? Scientists are too silly to see that if they can’t explain something, it must be God? I’m almost ashamed to be a member of this board right now.

Faith is separate from science. There’s a pretty good reason for theorizing dark energy, so don’t assume you’re smarter than scientists. If you try to explain every phenomenon in the universe on “God did it,” you’re back to Aristotelian physics and 300 B.C. mathematics.

I guarantee you that you don’t know more than the scientific community combined. Also remember that they aren’t “Satanic atheists who hate God,” they’re people observing and speculating on the mechanics of the universe as they see it. Many scientists are Catholic.

Religious people I know don’t say things like “Science can’t explain it, therefore it must be God.” We say things like “No matter how God did it, God did it - and wow, does science give us wonderful insight into exactly how God did do it.” This is to counter the scientists who say “WE explained it, therefore God does not exist.”

Yes, many scientists believe in God, or are practicing Catholics, but how many will admit so PUBLICLY? Ever take a poll of physicists at a university?

Dark energy and matter are currently unverified theories, just like phlogiston used to be. 20 years from now we may all be laughing at the dumb scientists who actually believed in such nonsense as dark matter and dark energy, and phlogiston. Or randomness creating complex life.

 

[hecd2]

The Vatican doesn’t think so. The are hosting a conference on formation and evolution of galaxies. More than 210 scientists are attending. See:
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10558

Just so. Thank you.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

OK.

holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye

holoscience.com/news.php?article=41wjs24r

PS. this site is intriguing, the archives have a LOT of supporting evidence, the links above are just a couple that relate to the discussion going on here now.

Thank you - an interesting site that supports the views of the late Hannes Alfven (plasma universe) and Halton Arp, (along with his supporters the Burbridges and Narlikar - intrinsic red shift and local QSOs).

You do realise, of course, that in the last twenty years the vast quantity of new evidence has convinced professional astrophysicists that these hypotheses, interesting as they were at the time, are now defunct. These sorts of sites present twenty year old data and do not take into account things like recent galaxy surveys. No evidence for intrinsic redshift has emerged - none whatsoever, and we observe redshift throughout the universe exactly as if it would appear if it were caused by recession and gravity. There is no such thing as a blue shifted QSO. As for a universe based on classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics, that has long been left behind - with every experimental data point supporting GR.

You also realise that Alfven stuck to his position, in large part, because of his distaste for the idea that a Big Bang would support creationist views - he was a strong anti-creationist and wanted to support a steady state cosmology with no beginning and so no creator?

In any case, can you explain precisely what on this web page is counter, to exactly what interpretation in the papers I cited. If we don’t actually work with evidence, we are merely bandying unsupported opinion about. So, if you don’t agree with the conclusions of my citations, in that they have found evidence for dark matter, can you point out exactly what is wrong with them. A link to a controversial web-page won’t do it.Tell me in your words what’s wrong with them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

All quoted by hecd2
You just don’t seem to get the point. There is no evidence for an invisible mass object. All of the papers jump to the conclusion that the effects that are seen are due to an invisible mass object. That conclusion completely overlooks the nature of gravity in GR. Any curvature of space may look like a mass object just as a mass object curves space. I have pointed this out before but you do no seem to understand GR.

And you don’t seem to get the point that the global curvature of space, as represented by the FRLW solutions to the Einstein field equations and as measured by COBE and WMAP is too small, by many orders of magnitude to explain the effects described in these papers: flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies, peculiar velocities in galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing, the maintenance of hot gas clusters, the late Sachs-Wolfe effect. They CANNOT be explained by global curvature of space, but only by the local presence of mass (which also curves space in GR - don’t you know?). I cannot make it simpler. Now do you get it?

sorry wrong word it should be astronomical.

Are we supposed to give credence to someone who can’t tell the difference between astronomy and astrology?

Motion in the spatial direction is limited to the speed of light and only one direction at a time.

Recession due to the expansion of space can occur at greater than the speed of light. This is well known at quite an elementary level by anyone who knows what they are talking about.

If you think there are more than three spatial dimensions please show where the fourth dimension of space fits.

I already have done, but you are incapable of understanding compact three dimensional topologies.

The three spatial dimensions x,y, and z should be considered sub-dimensions of the major spatial dimension.

Really? How about rho, theta, phi? Ever heard of polar co-ordinates laddie? Or r, theta, h - how about cylindrical co-ordinates? It’s astonishing how the ignorant, who have never done a co-ordinate transformation and don’t even know what one is, can pretend that they are knowledgeable.

Time must be thought of in the same manner as a major dimension. Just as with the spatial dimension there exist three sub-dimensions of time.

What, t, u, v? This is pathetic.

…Snipping meaningless nonsense…

As in the spatial dimension there are an unlimited number of directions in the time dimensions as seen by the unlimited number of possible directions outward from the Big Bang…

What utter garbage.

If you do not understand SR I will be happy to explain that to you.

Tee hee. Now that’s funny!

All transitions in any dimension is limited to the speed of light.

Wrong

The observation of the recession of objects is based on observation of redshift. This again is a case of jumping to the wrong conclusion about the cause of the redshift of distant objects. Redshift of distant objects is the result of the length of time a wave function has existed. This is the same cause for the CMB.

Aha! the limp and totally discredited hypothesis of tired light. Have you actually got ANY evidence for your fantasies?

When a wave is created, each incremental part lies on a time radial from the Big Bang. Just as with all objects in the universe the distance between objects increase with distance from the Big Bang. Wave function also increases in length.

You don’t even know what the words “wave function” mean. What you are trying, in your terribly naive way to say, is that wavelength increases because space has expanded since the Big Bang, which, at last is a correct observation, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with a wave function which is a quantum mechanical construct to define the behaviour of a quantum particle.

Of course my observations disagree with current belief

Your observations disagree with known physics.

I have given you a simple description that matches all observations and connects with reality at every point. From these basic ideas much more is able to be connected.

So how about explaining the power spectrum of the anisotropy in the CMB or the late Sachs-Wolfe effect or the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect or Luminet’s paper on a compact topology, Luminet et al, Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background, Nature 425, 593 - 595. No?
You are really making a bit of a fool of yourself. I suggest you are best to go and do a foundational course on physics and leave discussions on physics to those who have bothered to learn the subject professionally.

I do not mean to be rude, but what is your level of science education?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/dodecahedral_universe.htm

 

[ricmat]

You do realise, of course, that in the last twenty years the vast quantity of new evidence has convinced professional astrophysicists that these hypotheses, interesting as they were at the time, are now defunct. These sorts of sites present twenty year old data and do not take into account things like recent galaxy surveys. No evidence for intrinsic redshift has emerged - none whatsoever, and we observe redshift throughout the universe exactly as if it would appear if it were caused by recession and gravity. There is no such thing as a blue shifted QSO. As for a universe based on classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics, that has long been left behind - with every experimental data point supporting GR.

You also realise that Alfven stuck to his position, in large part, because of his distaste for the idea that a Big Bang would support creationist views - he was a strong anti-creationist and wanted to support a steady state cosmology with no beginning and so no creator?

In any case, can you explain precisely what on this web page is counter, to exactly what interpretation in the papers I cited. If we don’t actually work with evidence, we are merely bandying unsupported opinion about. So, if you don’t agree with the conclusions of my citations, in that they have found evidence for dark matter, can you point out exactly what is wrong with them. A link to a controversial web-page won’t do it.Tell me in your words what’s wrong with them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Perhaps there is more data over the last 20 years than you realize.

And yes, I realize that part of their theory undercuts the big bang, which supports a “beginning”. But as I said above (in other words), I don’t care if God actually created the universe with a beginning, or makes it appear as a steady state model. It just doesn’t matter. God did it in any case. I’m willing to consider their model, based on the science, knowing that it doesn’t really undercut God.

I actually sent these guys an email a year or two ago lambasting them for trying to get traction for their views by being anti-religious. That part of them doesn’t sit well with me, but I think they have something in the idea that the electrostatic force and electrical currents in space can account for a great number of observed galactic, stellar, and planetary features.

Actually, the most interesting things I found on that site was their record of successful predictions - you’d need to go through the whole site to see those (I don’t have a list handy - I’m not really a groupie of theirs). Primarily I’m thinking of the overall concept of an electric universe, currents flowing from star to star, planet to moon, etc. THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED MUCH, whereas conventional planetology and cosmology’s records have been abysmal.

I’d love to actually get some of these guys in here for a debate with you experts (I’m not in that category)

What is wrong with your evidence for dark matter is that it isn’t evidence, it is speculation. Just like black holes are speculation. Just like the Aether was speculation, and phlogiston was speculation. Just like multi-verses is speculation. Just like string theory is speculation. Nobody has ever actually seen or interacted with dark matter. You are observing effects of something and proposing a mythical dark matter and dark energy as the solution. Whereas the electric universe guys propose something that is well understood and which does exist as a solution, and which makes successful predictions. The math of dark matter may “work” but that doesn’t make imaginary things real. Get some dark matter, put it in a bottle, let folks poke it a bit and then you’ll have something.

 

[bobzills]

Just so. Thank you.

Alec

You’re welcome. And by the way, I am enjoying reading your posts in this thread.

 

[hecd2]

Perhaps there is more data over the last 20 years than you realize.

I think there is more than you realise. There has been a huge quantity of data over the last twenty years as I said, and it blows away the last vestiges of Arp’s intrinsic quantised red shifts. See for example data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the IRAS point source catalogue and the APMM cluster catalogue.

I think they have something in the idea that the electrostatic force and electrical currents in space can account for a great number of observed galactic, stellar, and planetary features.

Actually, the most interesting things I found on that site was their record of successful predictions - you’d need to go through the whole site to see those (I don’t have a list handy - I’m not really a groupie of theirs). Primarily I’m thinking of the overall concept of an electric universe, currents flowing from star to star, planet to moon, etc. THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED MUCH, whereas conventional planetology and cosmology’s records have been abysmal.

That is not so. They actually predict very little properly (and I have no idea what your evidence is for your claim that conventional physics makes poor predictions), and even things that they make hand-waving arguments for simply do not stack up against basic physics. I hadn’t realised until I looked at their website in more detail that they take Hannes Alfven’s respectable ideas about plasmas and electromagnetic phenomena playing a part in the virialisation of galaxies way, way beyond anything that he could possibly have agreed with. They claim that electrostatics and classical mechanics can be used to sweep away all of GR AND quantum mechanics, and they do this with pure hand waving and question begging arguments. They do not begin to have a theoretical framework that would justify such a claim. Only one of these two guys has any scientific education and neither one has done a stroke of research (the one who got a science degree, worked for most of his career in computer programming, the other is not an scientist at all). Beware of people like this who claim to have revolutionised modern physics with no more than hand waving and special pleading, but without a theoretical framework or the mathematical ability to create one. There are many people like this, who think they can overturn 130 years of physics with some obvious idea that has eluded professionals.

I can’t begin to point out all the problems with the idea that we can throw GR and QM away and rely only on classical electrodynamics, they are endless, but here are just a few they don’t begin to explain:

The avoidance of the hydrogen disaster
The stability of the atomic nucleus
Specific atomic energy levels
Fine and hyperfine spectral line splitting
Nuclear fission reactors and mass/energy balance in fission and fusion reactions
Radioactive decay
The need to correct GPS satellites for relativistic effects
Quantum tunelling
The violation of Bell’s inequality
Ultra low intensity Young’s double slit or Mach-Zender experiment
The BB spectrum of the CMB
The power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy
Flat rotational curves in galaxies
Gravitational lensing
Frame dragging
Electroweak interactions
QCD interactions

I could go on for pages. Any theory that displaces GR and QM will have to be a) quantitatively compatible with what we observe and b) provide a better theoretical framework for explaining and predicting everything that GR and QM explain. These guys don’t even get 0.1% along the way. Sorry.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

What is wrong with your evidence for dark matter is that it isn’t evidence, it is speculation.

And how can you say that if you haven’t engaged in a single paper that I have cited, I don’t know. If they are not scientific evidence, then I don’t know what is. What you have to do, if you disagree, is take one of these papers, any one will do, and point, with supporting arguments, to precisely why the conclusion reached that they find evidence for dark matter is unwarranted, either because the measurements they make are wrong or because they have misinterpreted the data. If you choose the former route, you will have to explain just where the error is in the data gathering. And if you choose the latter route, you will have to explain just where their interpretation of their observations is wrong and you will also have to put forward an alternative interpretation that fits the data. That is the way scientists work. Can you do that for us? Because, if you can’t, it might be good idea not make unsubstantiated claims like these in future.

Go to post number 11 to see the references.

To help you, I’ll post a few more:

Tyson et al, Detection of systematic gravitational lens image alignments: mapping dark matter in galaxy clusters, Astrophys. J.**, 349, L1-L4, (1990)
Kaiser and Squires, Mapping the dark matter with weak gravitational lensing, Astrophys**J 404, 441-450, (1993)
Sand et al, Separating baryons and dark matter in cluster cores: a full 2-D lensing and dynamic analysis of Abell 383 and MS2137-23 available here
arXiv:0710.1069v1

Nobody has ever actually seen or interacted with dark matter. You are observing effects of something and proposing a mythical dark matter and dark energy as the solution.
Whereas the electric universe guys propose something that is well understood and which does exist as a solution, and which makes successful predictions.

Except that the “electric universe” doesn’t - it doesn’t have quantified explanations for any of these observations. As a model for the universe it is hopeless. We interact with dark matter by observing the effect it has on things that we *can *observe. When did you last see an electron?

The math of dark matter may “work” but that doesn’t make imaginary things real. Get some dark matter, put it in a bottle, let folks poke it a bit and then you’ll have something.

I can see why you are not a physicist.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

 

[ricmat]

hecd2:

You are setting up straw man arguments.

I didn’t claim (nor do the sites I referenced) that they have a theory of everything.

They do not claim to offer a substitute for quantum mechanics, as you claim.

They do not claim to offer a substitute for general relativity, as you claim.

They DO offer a series of more reasonable answers to questions which are fudged only with much difficulty using gravity alone (wow, that just struck me as sort of like sola scriptura…)

Your list of things that the electric universe doesn’t answer is the same as their list, so far as I can figure out. Which is OK since they’re not claiming such.

You are using straw man arguments.

What they claim is that traditional physics is so enamored with gravity as a solution to everything (i.e. dark matter) that they miss the obvious - particularly when the answer involves electric currents in space, and electrically non-neutral stars and planets.

They successfully predicted in advance that the recent cometary probe impact would result in an electrical event - which it did. You guys said it wouldn’t. They shapes of planetary nebulae follow the patterns predicted by plasma dynamics, NOT gravity. “Impact craters” on virtually all the moons and planets overwhelmingly show evidence of massive electrical discharge, and NOT actual impacts…etc…etc. Look at their site.

I’m not at CAF to debate these kinds of things, and as I said, it would be nice if the electric universe guys could present their cases themselves. I’m not an apologist for them. But at least I have an open mind - and have a sense of the history of science.

It seems to me that you are doing a lot of hand waving yourself. “If we assume that this dark matter and energy exist (which has itself yet to be proven), then if we have just exactly the right amount of it distributed thus and such (which also is not proven), then we can use it to salvage our theory that gravity - which we can’t figure out how to incorporate into QM, is the only driving force in cosmology…”

PS - OK you win.

 

[hecd2]

Well, obviously you are unprepared or unable to show how the conclusion of dark matter from the papers I cited is flawed. It’s all very well going on and on about how dark matter is mythical but that cuts no ice if you can’t actually critique the science that has actually been done. An unsubstantiated claim that electrons don’t exist because we have never seen one, without pointing out where the evidence for electrons is flawed, is equivalent and would carry as much weight as your argument - ie none.

hecd2:

You are setting up straw man arguments.

I didn’t claim (nor do the sites I referenced) that they have a theory of everything.

They do not claim to offer a substitute for quantum mechanics, as you claim.

They do not claim to offer a substitute for general relativity, as you claim.

Not so I am afraid. You obviously haven’t read their site carefully enough. I direct you to this page:
holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
where it is obvious that they claim that electrodynamics explains everything that QM and GR do. In case you cannot be bothered to follow the link, I quote:
“The Electric Universe takes a simplifying leap by unifying the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near instantaneous electrostatic force” - **so they claim the TOE quite plainly
““Electromagnetic” radiation is then simply the result of an oscillating electrostatic force.” - clear clain that we can dispose with QED - this from guys who don’t seem to know the difference between Maxwell’s equations and a bale of straw.
"Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force in matter interactions." - Bah! - tell that to Nils Bohr
“It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits.” - yeah, yeah, let’s have some quantified predictions then to explain, say colour interactions in a collider. We’ll wait forever.
“For the first time the highly successful quantum theory gains a physical explanation in terms of resonant motion of charged particles, mediated by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force.” Even you must be able to see the problem with that. How in heaven’s name does that begin to explain entanglement or wave particle duality?
“It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force” Ye Gods!
“Einstein’s Special Theory was designed to define simultaneity in a universe where the fastest force or signal was restricted to the measured speed of detection of light from a distant source. With an electrostatic force of near-infinite speed acting between the sub-particles of all matter, relativity theory reduces to classical physics.”

And so it goes on. It’s all depressingly bad garbage created by people who have no idea what they are talking about. You should be careful whose ideas you endorse.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

Thanks, Alec You are an excellent educator! You are patient and thoughtful in your informative correspondence with members. I really appreciate it.

Nice pix in here with loads more of information:
science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/dark_energy.html
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/dark_energy.html

 

[hecd2]

They successfully predicted in advance that the recent cometary probe impact would result in an electrical event - which it did.

And just to finish off - what is your evidence, other than wishful thinking, for an “electrical” event from Deep Impact?

They shapes of planetary nebulae follow the patterns predicted by plasma dynamics, NOT gravity.

Now, this is a strawman. Where do cosmologists deny the influence of plasma effects in creating filaments and instabilities in planetary nebulae (from magentic not electrostatic effects, by the way)? That is fully accepted, but it does not support electrostatics as a significant contribution to the virialisation of galaxy clusters, or more importantly for this thread, the dynamics of spiral galaxies, the velocities of galaxies in galaxy clusters, or gravitational lensing.

“Impact craters” on virtually all the moons and planets overwhelmingly show evidence of massive electrical discharge, and NOT actual impacts

And the evidence for that is Ancient Greek statues? So what happens when a meteorite hits the moon? C’mon, this is a lost cause - it’s worthy of Walt Brown.

I’m not at CAF to debate these kinds of things, and as I said, it would be nice if the electric universe guys could present their cases themselves. I’m not an apologist for them. But at least I have an open mind - and have a sense of the history of science

That’s fine, but you should try not to have such an open mind that your brain falls out. The place for the guys present their case is in the science journals. They won’t - trust me (and they will bleat as all the other thousands of kooks and cranks who also think they have revolutionised physics or disproved GR or whatever, that they are being censored - whereas in fact they are unpublhishable because they don’t know any physics).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ricmat]

hecd2: It’s worth remembering that most of the guys who were right at the time were actually wrong over the long run. Only a small minority ever turns out to be right. Think about it: every radical advance was first suggested by (usually) one person, who was ridiculed by the scientists of the time. They all had REAL GOOD arguments why it was wrong, so good in fact that they missed out on some good opportunities.

OK - so some of their stuff is suspicious. Some of it is wrong. Being wrong part of the time doesn’t make it all wrong, or all that you believe to be right is also wrong (because I think that even you admit that you don’t know everything).

I believe that some of it will turn out to be right. But you’ll never admit it, because of pride.

Lighten up. Your arrogance is bad for science. Physicists tend to be this way, I know (my daughter is one and I chide her about it too.)

Please - look at their evidence for electric discharge from planets. If you really have an open mind (which I really really really doubt), then you’ll see that meteoric impacts just don’t explain a lot of things. It’s on their site. It is good science. And yes, as you say, some of the craters on the moon were actual impact craters. But look at recent evidence from the flybys of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. The data is still coming in. ITS NOT ALL IMPACT CRATERS!!! PLEASE!!!

BTW your statement that planetary nebulae formation is from magnetic, not electrostatic effects — really, I can’t believe a physicist said that. DUH when charged particles move, they create magnetic fields. What happens next is the field of plasma dynamics. Which these guys DO know about.

Have a nice day. Look, I’m in the middle of installing a garage door opener, and am all tuckered out. I don’t need to win this argument (I know that you do). SO here we go again…YOU WIN!!!