Does this explain what generates gravity?

Jump to Latest
#442
Does the following sound familiar?

"Today, physicists labour under misconceptions about the nature of matter and the concepts of space and time; the relationship between matter, mass and gravity; the real nature of stars and galaxies; and the size and age of the universe. So, when astrophysicists turn to particle physicists to solve their intractable problems and particle physicists use it as an excuse for squandering billions of dollars on nonsensical particle experiments, few will admit that both fields are in crisis. It truly is the blind leading the blind. Their mysteries are of their own making."

1686271384389.png


1686271443992.png


https://thesecularheretic.com/the-electric-universe-heresy/
 
#444
planet10 said:
and from all the recent data, confirmations and consternation, it seems to me, about to metamorphasize.

dave
Click to expand...

It's all fun. Except perhaps for the people in CERN that tagged their wagon to that monstrosity, and of course those in "mainstream" research think tanks.

See https://edberry.com/blog/climate/cl...signation-from-the-american-physical-society/ to realize how money can corrupt Physics. It just proves Thomas Kuhn.

Science is always shifting, there is no consensus, there can't be. Even Newton and Leibniz (*) couldn't agree on the Calculus... one was pragmatic (area to the limit) the other philosophical about it (what does it mean to change in time?).

Consensus is what you see at ASR.

Chaos is ZM. @Zen Mod... my kind of chaotic guy. ;-)

People like NP are caught in the middle, very smart, very talented but with a company to run. I mean, he can't start putting red LEDs in his amplifiers until he runs out of the 100,000 blue LEDs he bought for a song the morning after he blew up one of the Pipe-Os.... he said they were "drinking" wine and decided to Turn It Up... you figure out the after effects the morning after when Radio Shack offered him all those blue LEDs on a close out sale. ;-)

For fun, go read The Baroque Cycle by Neil Stephenson.

(*) To be a polymath.... the best I could do was write a paper where I compared Mondrian with Vector Algebra and actually wrote some vector sets. My Western Classical Art History Professor had no clue so he presented my paper to his friend, in the Math Dept ( who knew me ). I got an A++++++++ on the paper and awesome feedback from both profs and my own advisor in Physics. And as a matter of fact, I was sober when I wrote that paper!

At about the same time table, Pass was doing Stasis. Yeah, but did he have, in his lab, all those cute girls I had in my Art History Class?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#445
I do remember, I do repeat:
"Our equations for the sun, for example, as a ball of hydrogen gas, describe a sun without sunspots, without the rice-grain structure of the surface, without prominences, without coronas. Yet, all of these are really in the equations; we just haven't found the way to get them out." R. Feynman;-)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6879068-we-have-written-the-equations-of-water-flow-from-experiment
https://books.google.de/books?id=4r...without prominences, without coronas.&f=false
Ergo: No science. No scientists;-)
Did, do Children in adult costumes enter the scientific institutes;-?!\\

;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#446
A children's article:

"First, the claim is not scientifically proven." RT are not scientifically proven either. Suggestion.
"Second, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Peer review prevents discussion, science. Because there are no mechanisms to prevent DOGMA from becoming the basis of CENSORship. Emotional, psychological, social mechanisms become action-guiding.
"Finally, the electric universe cannot be applied to all unknown phenomena." Nor can RT be applied to ale unknown phenomena. Suggestion.

"It cannot explain how the sun is powered by fusion in its core." Here an untested assertion is presented as fact. Circular reasoning.
"It also cannot predict the existence of neutrinos, which are a key element of the fusion model." Likewise! Circular reasoning.
"And finally, the electric universe cannot predict how the spectral lines of photons from the solar core will appear." ;-?
And so on.

A prerequisite for "scientificity" is, for example, the ability to recognize suggestion and circular reasoning;-)

https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-theory-debunked/
 
#449
Language is treacherous:
"Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at interstellar and intergalactic scales.[2][1]
In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity)."

A quick view:
"non-standard cosmology" = non scientific;-?
"postulate" = not explain;-?
"dynamic of ionized gases and plasmas" = what explains their "dynamics"-?

"current observations and models... explain" - observations do not explain in principle, mostly symbols are foisted as models;-)
"of cosmologists and astrophysics" - who discusses the electric universe;-?
"Albert Einstein" - who are the known scientific representatives of the electroverse theses, theories; > 100 years discourse analysis necessary;-)
"theory" - it is a thesis only, unproven;-)

May be, with the Elektro Universe also e.g. key technologies of military, secret service, NWO are to remain hidden;-)

Ah: Wikipedia is a tool in the hands of the elites: has nothing to do with "science" or "free, democratic discourse"-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
 
#451
cumbb said:
Language is treacherous:
"Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at interstellar and intergalactic scales.[2][1]
In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity)."
Click to expand...

So now we're getting underlining as well as "inverted" commas! 😱
 
#456
cumbb said:
Another Natural Philosopher
Click to expand...

The Problem of the Expanding Universe by Dr. Edwin Hubble?

Background: In the 1920s, cosmologist Edwin Hubble found that the more distant a galaxy, the faster it is moving away from us.

This is Hubble’s law. This observational law is the proof that the Universe is expanding.

Unfortunately, I can't access the article in your link to discover what Hubble perceived the problem to be.

Are you able to provide a summary (hopefully sans underlines and inverted commas)?
 
#457
"... found that the more distant a galaxy, the faster it is moving away from us."
Hubble made the mistake and published his interpretation of the red shift as Doppler effect instead only as observation and description. Scientifically: An (single) interpretation would have been permitted only if ALL other conceivable interpretations are to be excluded - which would, may be, NEVER be the case;-)
In the further course he recognized his mistake and published so some studies concerning this. However, his statements got no more attention, because the train "expanding universe, Einstein's theories of relativity" had already sailed:
discourse analysis, science analysis, thesis analysis;-)

"This observational law is the proof that the Universe is expanding." No!
Science: This "observational law" is the proof of redshift! Nothing more;-!!!
 
#459
cumbb said:
Language is treacherous:
"Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at interstellar and intergalactic scales.[2][1]
In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity)."

A quick view:
"non-standard cosmology" = non scientific;-?
"postulate" = not explain;-?
"dynamic of ionized gases and plasmas" = what explains their "dynamics"-?

"current observations and models... explain" - observations do not explain in principle, mostly symbols are foisted as models;-)
"of cosmologists and astrophysics" - who discusses the electric universe;-?
"Albert Einstein" - who are the known scientific representatives of the electroverse theses, theories; > 100 years discourse analysis necessary;-)
"theory" - it is a thesis only, unproven;-)

May be, with the Elektro Universe also e.g. key technologies of military, secret service, NWO are to remain hidden;-)

Ah: Wikipedia is a tool in the hands of the elites: has nothing to do with "science" or "free, democratic discourse"-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
Click to expand...

Try it this way:

non-standard cosmology = non scientific;-? postulate = not explain;-? dynamic of ionized gases and plasmas = what explains their dynamics-?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom