@LeatherCladVegan All the wonders of the universe at their fingertips...And these two guys have to argue about who's the smartest man in the room.....Think your kinda' missing the point fellas'... ( glad to see someone is " getting it " .)
Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales, relying instead on the further development of classical mechanics and electrodynamics in application to astrophysical plasmas. While during the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion of the merits of plasma cosmology, these ideas have generally been rejected by the mainstream cosmology community
Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist, every idea and equation he published had already been published by actual physicists previously. His ridiculous "thought experiments" showed he didn't even understand the ideas he was plagiarizing.
Plasma cosmology is the only cosmology rooted firmly in experimental verification. It consists of more than just star gazing and story telling, consequently it boasts more successful predictions than the rest.
Sometimes I think fertilizer/Dwight Schrute is being serious, but when I read what he thinks about dark matter, craters, gravitational lensing, etc. I think he's just lonely and he's trying to get people to argue with him because it's the only form of social interaction that he can get..
Anyone as stupid as he pretends to be surely wouldn't be able to figure out how to get on the internet..
Again you have nothing to add to the discussion but your pointless, meandering series of assumptions and speculations about me. Eat my ass, you fucking troll. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
Scientists say different things about dark matter but they all agree on one thing: There's something out there that we can't see.. Since they can't see it, they refer to it as "dark matter"..
Saying that dark matter doesn't exist is a tantamount of saying that you've seen everything in the universe..
Ahh Jesus more "electric universe" zombies. When will this fringe shit die. I thought science moved away from this sort of crap long ago. This is the modern equivalent of alchemy, a festering sore on the ass of actual science. Brane theory makes more sense than this.
Plasma is super heated gas, gas that has gotten so hot and into which so much energy has been transferred it has become ionized. The basic understanding of this is the flaw in the entire quackery that is the electric universe.
Strange that you call it "fringe" when the electric universe boasts the single most successful track record for not only reasonably explaining observations but also predicting future discoveries.
Plasma is not "super heated gas", it is simply ionized or "charged" matter. You clearly don't know anything about plasma that wasn't told to you by your television.
It doesnt have any track record to speak of. It hasnt been able to successfully predict anything right. You think that black holes aren't real and saturns rings are just illusions when both things have been observed and are known to exist as a FACT.
Plasma is ionised matter. However, it is always a gas, and most plasma is formed at very high temperatures, (like that in the sun) or strong electrical discharges like lightning.
@fertilizerspike You are still unable to explain why, despite being a repulsive force as well as attractive, astronomical bodies are only ever seen attracting one another. There should be an equal amount of repelling being done, yet there is none whatsoever.
The sun is plasma, yes, however none of the planets are. No planet has an overall charge, and neither does the sun. YOU need charged bodies to exist, yet no charged astronomical body does.
This video repeats the popular fable that emission nebulae are "glowing gas" that's "excited" by some nearby source, in this case the suggestion is made that the source is "hot stars".
These nebular are not neutral "gas" and they are not lit because they are heated by nearby stars. The universe uses efficient phenomena, these nebulae are by electric discharge, not inefficient "heating" until they are hot enough to give off visible light.
@fertilizerspike No there isnt anything magical about electricity. However, what electricity is, and what you think/want electricity to be are two very different things and the latter requires electricity to have properties which it doesn't have, ie magic.
Plasma is not "superheated gas", plasma is ionized or "charged" matter. Plasmas are dominated by electric and magnetic forces, they ignore "gravity" models.
Why don't you explain what it is I've said about or want electricity to be that's magical. I'd venture to say you won't come up with anything, because you're talking out your ass. Gravity is not what you think/want it to be, it's a misunderstanding that explains nothing only shifts understanding further away.
@fertilizerspike How do you think the elements are ionised? Its by heating it up to very high temperatures so that the electrons have enough energy to escape the electrostatic force holding them to the nucleus.
You havent been able to explain how electricity can take the place of gravity. Gravity only attracts, EM attracts and repels yet we only ever see attraction between astronomical bodies. Is the earth + and the sun -? What are we then? Also -'s? Then why dont we repel each other?
@fertilizerspike So, I know the EM force is both attractive and repulsive (attraction with -+ and +-) (repulsion with -- and ++) yet we never see planets repelling things, we never see stars repelling each other, we never see galaxies forcing each other away. They only ever attract. Something you cannot account for unless all these things have opposite charges.
Which they dont. None of them have any charge. They are all neutral. Gravity however, accounts for it all.
Every body in the solar system is made of matter, and most of them enjoy a "positive" charge with respect to the massive, weak radial electric field powering the sun. With respect to each other, the planets enjoy differing degrees of this "positive" charge. Suggesting the planets are "neutral" is absurd in the extreme. All matter enjoys some degree of electric charge. Nothing is truly "neutral" just as there is no "perfect vacuum".
@fertilizerspike it doesnt need to be a perfect vacuum. Electrons are -ve, and protons are positive. All elements and molecules which are not ionised have an equal number of protons and electrons, thus their overall charge is 0.
Besides, that doesnt explain why the moon orbits the earth or why things fall when you drop them. It only (incorrectly) tries to explain the structure of the solar system.
@fertilizerspike in order for us to be attracted to the "positive" earth, we would have to have an overall negative charge. That means that humans would repel each other, the sun and the moon which must all have -ve charges to be attracted to the earth. Yet we are not repelled by each other, and people have walked on the moon, so they couldnt of had the same charge.
Any time you have charged bodies able to interact electrically (as in a plasma), gravity is mooted, electromagnetic forces dominate. This is verified by repeated experiments that are readily reproduced.
Your claim that bodies must have "opposite charge" to be attracted toward each other is cartoonish and incomplete. Birkeland currents with identical "charges" and current densities are attracted toward each other as described by "gravity laws", yet the attraction is magnetic.
The force between two birkeland currents causes them to twine and braid around each other, because it is attractive at a distance and repulsive as the filaments get very close together. We observe this in the lab, we observe braided filaments in space, the same forces are responsible for attraction between bodies in space, not this imaginary "force" called "gravity".
Try looking into the "gravity probe B" experiment, the researchers in charge of those experiments refer to "gravity" in terms of electric and magnetic effects, not this metaphysical notion with no empirical referent that is not tied in any way but philosophically to reality.
@fertilizerspike They simply showed that gravity has a dragging effect similar to electromagnetism. No surprise there, as gravity cant go faster than light.
You've just managed to confuse yourself in ignorance. No surprises there either.
@fertilizerspike Um, in regard to the GP-B, the researchers most certainly do not refer to gravity in terms of electromagnetic forces. They describe gravity the way everybody doing General Relativity work does, with equations from Einstein, Lense and Thirring. What on Earth were you reading?
Your repeated insistence that electricity is somehow "magic" is beyond laughable. If you're unable to discuss this subject at hand without continually referring to your assumptions and speculations and wishful thinking about me, I'll have to block you like I did all the other trolls.
@fertilizerspike electricity isnt magic. What you want electricity to be is magic. I know what electricity really is. You want it to be something it is not. Plasma is a gas which has been heated up to temperatures high enough for it to be ionised. You think that because something now has a +ve charge, it now creates its own electricity.
First, explain how electrostatic forces can account for the purely attractive force between mass.
I'll tell you again, there's nothing "magic" about electricity in space. Plasmas are not merely "a gas which has been heated up", heat is irrelevant. Plasmas are ionized or "charged" matter, and by all accounts it's the fundamental state of matter, over 99% of matter in the universe exists in this state. It really is an electric plasma universe.
@fertilizerspike 99% of matter exists in stars. Stars are made of plasma. Nobody, since the discovery of the make-up of stars has said otherwise. However, what you are doing is saying elements and molecules with a +ve charge suddenly create electricity from nothing and use only half of the force to attract, and ignoring the laws of physics, and never repel.
I didn't say anything about "electrostatic forces", and to be honest I'm not sure what you mean by "electrostatic". I wasn't aware electricity could be "static". Maybe you could try to explain it again so it's not too confusing for me.
@fertilizerspike Also, how does plasma ignore gravity models? Gravity is a very weak force and just isnt used for things like plasma unless there is enough of it to have a large enough mass (like with the sun)
For things to be attracted to each other with the EM force, there must first be an overall charge on the body. Both the sun and the earth (and any other body in the solar system) has no overall charge, thus cannot be attracted to each other using your theory, unless electricity is magic.
It's firmly-established by laboratory experiment that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, and are dominated by electric and magnetic forces, which affect plasmas at least thirty times more strongly than does this imaginary "force" called "gravity". That's is "how plasma ignores gravity models". Electric and magnetic forces dominate the universe on every scale.
@fertilizerspike well obviously. Gravity is weak. Electromagnetism is magnitudes of strength stronger. Thus anything which has an overall charge is going to be dominated by the EM force. However, plasma is still matter, and when you have a sufficient quantity it is observed obeying gravity (like in stars)
The sun and the planets all enjoy an electric charge. The radial electric field powering the sun causes "double layers" in the plasma around the sun. Each "layer" enjoys a drastically different charge than the next, and most of the voltage potential exists right at the boundary layers. Bodies within each layer thus enjoy different "charge" than bodies in other layers. One such layer is near the orbit of Jupiter, where some comets are known to flare.
@BlackRaptor31 Bingo. To the electric universe believers, plasma is their holy grail, and electricity their philosophers stone. It is the modern day equivalent of alchemy for astrophysics. While some useful ideas will no doubt evolve from it, it has no real basis as a theory explaining the things it claims to explain.
@fertilizerspike point 2 is incorrect. It doesnt ignore gravity. Gravity acts on mass. EM only acts on charges. Stars are not charged, but they do have mass thus they obey gravity.
Do some research, learn the properties and behaviours of plasmas, then we can discuss this intelligently. Until then, your position of weakness (ignorance) does neither of us any good.
No, they're not wrong, they simply conflict with your beliefs.
It's been shown by repeated observations that plasma accounts for well over 99% of the observable universe. Only ignorant astronogers and the people who share their belief systems believe in "dark matter" and "dark energy" being over 95% of the universe, leave it to the delusional to imagine the vast majority of the universe is unobservable. That's not science, it's pathological.
WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density. Thus only 4.6% of the universe can be made out of stuff we can observe directly.
Oh, you still havent explained away gravitational lensing as an observed phenomenon. We have seen galaxies bend light around them. You cant explain that with your magic electromagnets either.
I can spell astronomers just fine, what you fail to realize is that astronogers are not astronomers, they are not scientists.
The universe is not "flat". Is this like flat-Earth or what? Give me a break.
Your claim that we can only directly observe less than 5% of the universe is absurd on its face. Astronogers rely on "unobservable" matter and phenomena to explain what they don't understand.
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been shown to have any such effect on light, electromagnetic forces can, however, bend and even polarize light, not "gravity".
Such lensing in space is speculative. Assuming you know light is "bent" when you don't know the initial conditions is like suggesting train cars are missing from a train you've never seen before.
Electromagnetic forces CAN explain lensing, but we haven't verified any such lensing yet.
@fertilizerspike photons dont have a charge. They cant be "lensed" by magnetism. Deny it all you like, but gravitational lensing has been observed. Light bends around objects with a high gravitational field (stars, black holes and galaxies have all been seen to lense light)
Its well understood, and well documented and complies completely with the theory of relativity and gravity. Just like all the evidence gathered so far.
Apparently you're not familiar with the "zeeman effect" or the "faraday effect", which deal with bending and polarizing of light by electromagnetic forces. Your belief is not required.
No such "lensing" in space has ever been verified. In every case where "lensing" is said to take place, we have no knowledge of the state of the light we're observing before it reaches us, assuming it in a previously different state is like assuming cars are missing from a train you've never seen.
@fertilizerspike Wrong, yet again. The Zeeman Effect applies to emitted light, the magnetism acts on the source atom, not the photon. And the Faraday Effect is only valid for propagation of light in a medium (once again, acting on mater not the light) and leads to a phase rotation, not refraction. Unless you can provide a paper, I have yet to (and likely never will knowing you) see ANY material suggesting an EM alternative to gravitational lensing observations.
Despite your insistence, there is absolutely no evidence that gravity can "bend" light. This is nonsensical metaphysical speculation that has never been verified by experiment or observations.
Presumed lensing in space, if it even takes place, is electromagnetic in nature, not due to "gravity" somehow "bending space". It has never been verified, if it ever was verified, electromagnetic explanations would suffice without inventing "bent space".
@fertilizerspike For starters, the picture taken by the Hubble telescope of galaxy cluster Abell 1689 in 2004 is observational evidence of gravitational lensing.
Yes, look up Abell 1689. It is a real galaxy cluster and the picture of it is real.
Gravity can bend light. You are a liar when you say scientists have never observed this phenomenon. But i am talking to some fuckwit who thinks he is superior in mind than of people like Einstein and Hawking.
You are a nobody and your claims should not be taken seriously based on no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that right "Mr Electroverse".
If you think this "lensing" exists, feel free to explain to everyone where it's taking place, surely astronogers have named them, like they did "einstein cross". Oh, don't mention "einstein cross", that has been shown to be give objects in physical contact with one another, not two objects, one in front of the other in perfect alignment with our line of sight.
@BlackRaptor31 Dude you are wasting your time arguing with the aptyl named "Fertilizer" there. Pseudo scientist aficionados are like religious nuts, you cant argue anything with them using facts because the very nature of their belief system disregards the facts you use.
Its like arguing with a conspiracy fanatic. They will always just claim whatever you say is a part of the conspiracy you have "fallen" for.
@BlackRaptor31 Notice how he claims that gravitational lensing, which has been observed several times and verified to exist, doesnt exist because we dont know the "state" of the light before it was observed. Which itself depends on his own chosen pseudo science's theories that light has some other state to be observed in. Instead of providing proof that this is so, he attack the accepted fact that it isnt.
@EmperorofCartoons He claims gravitational lensing is just hypothetical and doesn't really exist. At the same time he claims the bending of light is caused by electromagnetism.
@fertilizerspike First off, general relativity predicted that gravity can bend light. There was no empirical proof until gravitational lensing was first observed.
Abell 1689 is a gravitational lensed object. I'm not going to repeat this again.
There's no experimental verification of the notion that "gravity" can bend light. If you know of some experiments that showed that, feel free to cite them here.
@fertilizerspike Astronomy... all astronomy, is an observational science. Your precious theory is just as enthralled by this limit as any other. By demanding experimentation you deny your own position... because no matter what plasma does in the lab (something I know you don't actually know) the fact that you can't put a star in a test tube means your claims are no less theoretical prediction than anyone else's.
If you wish to practice astronomy as a science, you need to verify your claims with experiments, not just observation. Without controlled experimental conditions, you are not practicing science, it's just star gazing and story telling. It's more like astrology than astronomy, hence the term "astronogers".
Go do some more research before you run your mouth about this. Virtually all electric phenomena we observe in space has been replicated in the lab. We can simulate stars.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@fertilizerspike ALFVEN'S SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS AND INSIGHTS: o - galactic magnetic field o - "ring currents" around Earth o - plasma "neutral gas" interactions o - utility of "frozen field lines" model o - "gyro center approximation" model o - "magnetohydrodynamics" o - particle beam acceleration o - controlled fusion o - electric comets o - large scale filamentary structure of universe o - synchrotron radiation in celestial observation The list is quite long, I could probably make 50 posts.
I'm sure you could... just as I'm sure that like all the rest of your posts, not one of them would contain an actual citation to an actual source, because I suspect that you haven't ever read a single scientific paper in your life. You're obviously just quoting lists from some Electric Universe svengalli, as you obviously couldn't understand the original material even if you could find it.
Since you chose to abuse the spam flagging process to try to bury all the evidence I cited for you, I posted it all again below. Have fun reading it all and doing the research to verify the things I've said. Come back in a few years when you're all caught up and we can continue your education.
@fertilizerspike "Since you chose to abuse the spam flagging process..."
Guess what. I have never once flagged your material as spam. In fact, I'm often unflagging your stuff. You really need to realize that your personal paranoias do not amount to actual information. Neither does your pathetic list of claims count as either verification , citation or source references, and if you had an education even half equal to your ego, you'd know that.
I've done the same thing, unflagged opposing views because they were not spam. As for "personal paranoia", clearly you haven't seen the comments directed toward me announcing baldly the intention to abuse the spam flagging feature. Either that or you're being willfully ignorant. I've cited abundant sources of this information, but I can't force you to research them. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you.
@fertilizerspike Look, I'm tired of this. Nothing you have posted, as far as I can see, is anything like a real citation. And in those rare cases where you at least mention a name, half the material you seem to be referring to is irrelevant, and the rest just demonstrates your ignorance of the material itself, or your reliance on well known conspiracy theorists. If you actually bother to show any change in this respect, I may bother looking at it... but I have no more time for your nonsense.
Don't blame me for your inability to do the research to verify what I've said.
I've never once mentioned "conspiracy theory", you must have me confused with either yourself or any of the other half dozen morons who've been shouting "conspiracy theory" ever since I first started posting.
If you want sources to verify claims I've made, feel free to identify which claims and I'll be more than happy to help you, again.
If you wish to practice astronomy as a science, you need to verify your claims with experiments, not just observation. Without controlled experimental conditions, you are not practicing science, it's just star gazing and story telling. It's more like astrology than astronomy, hence the term "astronogers".
Go do some more research before you run your mouth about this. Virtually all electric phenomena we observe in space has been replicated in the lab. We can simulate stars.
@fertilizerspike ALFVEN'S SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS AND INSIGHTS: o - galactic magnetic field o - "ring currents" around Earth o - plasma "neutral gas" interactions o - utility of "frozen field lines" model o - "gyro center approximation" model o - "magnetohydrodynamics" o - particle beam acceleration o - controlled fusion o - electric comets o - large scale filamentary structure of universe o - synchrotron radiation in celestial observation The list is quite long, I could probably make 50 posts.
Your bald assertion that "Abell 1689" is a "lensed object" is not convincing to me. Astronogers say this object is "warping space" because there are "curved" objects near it.
No effort is made by astronogers to rule out other causes for this "curvature" of objects, which is interpreted by astronogers as "curvature of space". Space is a virtual coordinate system, it can not be "curved" by matter.
Halton Arp discovered many things about "abell clusters". They have few "normal" galaxies. They occur in lines. They "cluster" around active galaxies like "QSO" do. They're often "paired" around such galaxies. They display absolutely no "hubble relationship" (redshift=distance=velocit=age). They are "bridged" by matter emitting x-rays. If "lensing" was responsible the incidence would increase with fainter magnitudes, instead it levels off. "Gravitational lensing" is wrong.
Plasma pinches demonstrate both radial and concentric filamentary structures. This is what we see in "abell clusters", not "gravitational lensing" but a plasma pinch, an effect of electric discharge in plasma.
Circular morphology is exhibited because we have an axial view of it. We observe the same phenomenon in the lab. The "hot gas" interpretation of these objects is also a physically flawed model, this is plasma at work, not "hot gas" and "gravitational lensing".
Astronogers are willfully blind to electrical effects in space. I can't say why.
When they see "abell 1689" they see high "redshift" in the "curved" objects, that tells them old age, vast distance, high recessional velocity, older. This "redshift" indicates a very YOUNG age of highly ionized plasma.
Astronogers can only summon up "gravity lensing" to explain their "distance", electric universe explains this as recently-ejected material.
Astronogers can only explain what they see as a preposterously large yet for some reason not visible mass because they ignore electrical effects in space. What we can see in "abell 1689" is about 1% of the mass astronogers claim is there causing this "gravity lensing". It's absurd on its face to suggest 99% of ANYTHING is unobservable "dark matter". Gravity models are wrong, they routinely fail, "dark matter" was invented ad hoc to kludge it to fit the observations.
@BlackRaptor31 People like him are just like those fundamentalists who think red shift can be caused by "slow light": even though no such thing has ever been remotely demonstrated to be possible.
These people pick a theory that either sounds cool or supports their world view and try to find ways of supporting it instead of observing and trying to theorize what caused their observation
Okay so if dark matter does not exist, how do you explain flat rotation curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing effects (which have been observed since 1921 on and on) seeding of nucleosynthesis and condensation of population III -stars?
You can calculate the curvature of the universe by Friedmann-equations and it is confirmed by WMAP observations.
btw: Dark Matter is not unobservable...it isn't just luminous. Dark Energy is a different story.
Galaxies are homopolar motors, driven by electric discharge, not gravity. We don't have to imagine "black hole" in the center or "dark matter" sprinkled wherever gravity models continue to fail in order to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, electric and magnetic forces dominate.
As for the "curvature of the universe", I'm not even going to address here how idiotic the very notion of the universe being "curved" is.
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been verified to have any such effect on light. In fact every relevant experiment ever performed suggests gravity has NO effect on light. Electromagnetic forces can bend light, however, as well as polarize it.
If you know of some experiments (not just observation and speculation) that show such an effect, please cite them here.
1. The universe is filled with plasma, over 99% of the observable universe is matter in a plasma state.
2. Plasmas are negligibly affected by "gravity", they ignore the dictates of gravity models and instead are dominated by electric and magnetic forces.
3. The universe is dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, well over 99% of the observable universe does not follow "gravity" models.
No, they're not wrong, they just contradict your beliefs. Stellar fusion has been falsified by many lines of evidence. Stellar fusion can not reasonably account for any observed features of the sun. Stars are powered by electric discharge.
Craters are not caused by falling rocks, they are caused by electric discharges. Everywhere we find craters we find no rocks fallen from space, everywhere we see rocks fallen from space we see no craters. Your beliefs are falsified.
No crater has ever been observed as a result of a meteorite impact. Everywhere we find meteorites we find no craters, everywhere we find craters we find no meteorites. Craters are not caused by falling rocks. Planets are not ""play-dough".
We observe many things that falsify impact models:
You're simply wrong. Impact models do not adequately explain the overwhelming majority of craters we observe in the universe. Impact models can't explain the various features of observed craters without repeated ad hoc and peculiar conditions necessary for which there is no evidence. All these "anomalous" features of craters find reasonable explanations if we conclude they were carved and blasted by electric discharges.
Craters with smaller craters are their rims are readily explained in terms of electric discharge. The rims are higher, that's where quenching discharges strike after the main strike.
Overlapping craters is a common phenomenon in electric discharge machining, very uncommon from "random" scattering of falling rocks. Overlapping craters are very common on bodies in space.
Steep walls and flat floors: more verification of electric discharge machining, no as hoc conditions to meet
"No crater has ever been observed as a result of a meteorite impact. Everywhere we find meteorites we find no craters, everywhere we find craters we find no meteorites. Craters are not caused by falling rocks. Planets are not ""play-dough"."
BRAVO!
You just wrote that yourself right?
Now read it back and see if you piss yourself laughing much like my reaction to this bullshit. As many have said before, obvious troll is obvious.
@fertilizerspike stellar fusion has never been falsified. You have never been able to put any evidence forward as to how it has, and interestingly you have never been able to explain away my pointing out of the flaws in your hypothesis. Why does all matter attract? You cant answer that. You've never even tried. EM attracts and repels yet planets, stars and galaxies are only ever seen attracting. You are wrong.
Yes, stellar fusion is falsified, many times over.
Sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere above it. If the sun were powered internally by any means, this would not be the case, it would be hotter under the photosphere, not cooler. This one observation falsifies stellar fusion. Ignore it at your intellectual peril. That's one fact that's never going to change, the sun is not powered internally (by fusion or any other means). The sun is electric.
Sunspots do not prove that the sun isn't heated from inside, anymore than a glacier proves that the earth isn't heated from the inside. Both are naturally occurring phenomena as a result of the energy transfers on the surface of turbulently heated bodies.
You cannot POSSIBLY believe that stellar fusion has been falsified. There is overwhelming evidence for it. You must be fucking with people.
You betray your ignorance when you make claims like that.
Sunspots reveal a cooler surface beneath the photosphere. Feel free to explain why it does not. The Earth is heated externally by the sun, a wood stove is heated internally. Stoves don't have glaciers on them, and the temperature doesn't drop as you get closer to it. Kindly pull your head out of your ass. Did you even think about this shit or just blurt it out. Rhetorical question.
There definitely is no point in arguing with me, because I'm not going to argue with you. Shut up and take notes and try and learn something, that's my advice.
I never said I was "smarter than all of the physicists of the past hundred years". For one thing, most physicists agree with me. Belief in "big bang", in "dark matter", in "dark energy", in "black hole", in the idea that space is filled with "gas" and not plasma disqualifies one as a scientist (or physicist for that matter).
1- The Earth is heated externally, not internally.
2- The "cool spots" on the sun indicate the surface is cooler than the photosphere above it, falsifying stellar fusion models.
3- Your speculation that sunspots reveal peculiarly cool spots is unfounded, the entire surface is as "cool" as sunspots are. The photosphere is NOT the surface.
4- The "internal temperature" of the sun has been erroneously derived using black body formulae.
YOU ARE HIGH!!! ELECTRIC CHARGES TRANSMUTE MATTER????
No one has EVER observed electric charge transmuting matter! Nuclear Fusion, FIssion, and decay are The ONLY observed processes leading to change in nuclear charge!
HOLY SHIT! If you are serious, you should flagellate yourself.
Actually you're wrong, electric discharge is known to transmute elements. Lightning can transmute oxygen atoms into sulfur, for example.
There are even industrial processes where this phenomenon is exploited.
You might also want to check into all the research into "sustained" fusion, all of which exploit electric and magnetic fields to initiate and sustain fusion.
Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
Furthermore (I have no idea why I'm doing this), if the earth were heated only from external sources, the temperature gradient would uniformly decrease from the surface to the core. This is exactly opposite of the case. Any fucking 9th grader could tell you that.
Sorry, one mistake. Electron or positron absorption can change nuclear charge, but beta absorption would DECREASE nuclear charge, which would make no sense as a solar process given the evidence, and positron absorption is a ridiculous idea, since positrons would first be attracted to electrons and cause obliteration rather than hit the positively charged nucleus of an atom and transform a neutron into a proton.
I can't believe I just wasted my time explaining that.
Nice thanks For shared
ftopdirs 2 weeks ago
looking forward for more
TheSanovita 3 weeks ago
canggih
ctopdirs 3 weeks ago
MANTAP Bro I Like This Video ;))
TheJatmikoo 4 weeks ago
@TheJatmikoo ;))
JeniTheBat 3 weeks ago
ooh wow thats cool
willbirful 1 month ago
Interesting video
MyDavidsun 1 month ago
I'm glad I found your video
andreeaweed 1 month ago
beautiful ... great work ... tnx for sharing ..
gadionson1 1 month ago
We can't see them yet we know their there. Lurking behind dense clouds of dust and debris. These creatures are hiding inside interstellar clouds.
heartlessvietboy 6 months ago
double u double u double u penetrate me, yes?
siperdellyeer 8 months ago
I was hoping to see a video where you could see the center of the universe instead of one of the arms. :(
Aresftfun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" at CERN they routinely produce "neutrinos" with electric and magnetic fields"
"Grow up, they're not "searching for neutrinos", they're transmuting lead into other elements"
There are those comments that you removed.. (cut down to save space)
I saved them because I figured that you might get rid of the evidence of your self contradiction..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
I love you ESA and NASA!
Athaeus 1 year ago
@Athaeus
We love you too.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
You can find the plasma theory that fertilizer is talking about on this channel.
PlasmaUniverse1 1 year ago
How could this actually get a thumbs down. Does Youtube have a automatic Troll.
marcuelcajon 1 year ago
Why are you two idiots debating dark matter and transmutation? Because youtube is swarming with dickheads, that's why.
Here's a helpful tip for life: PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DEBATES ON YOUTUBE.
Have a nice day :D
LeatherCladVegan 1 year ago
@LeatherCladVegan All the wonders of the universe at their fingertips...And these two guys have to argue about who's the smartest man in the room.....Think your kinda' missing the point fellas'... ( glad to see someone is " getting it " .)
shocktower70 1 year ago
@LeatherCladVegan lol agreed
megaverse 1 year ago
That last post was on Wikipedia.. Normally I don't take much stock in wiki, but in this case, other - more reputable sources - agree..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales, relying instead on the further development of classical mechanics and electrodynamics in application to astrophysical plasmas. While during the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion of the merits of plasma cosmology, these ideas have generally been rejected by the mainstream cosmology community
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Science is not performed by consensus.
Einstein was a fraud and plagiarist, every idea and equation he published had already been published by actual physicists previously. His ridiculous "thought experiments" showed he didn't even understand the ideas he was plagiarizing.
Plasma cosmology is the only cosmology rooted firmly in experimental verification. It consists of more than just star gazing and story telling, consequently it boasts more successful predictions than the rest.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
"You betray your ignorance when you make claims like that."
LMAO! Ok, Dwight Schrute..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
which asshole creationist gave this a thumbs down?
UnluckyGambler 1 year ago
Sometimes I think fertilizer/Dwight Schrute is being serious, but when I read what he thinks about dark matter, craters, gravitational lensing, etc. I think he's just lonely and he's trying to get people to argue with him because it's the only form of social interaction that he can get..
Anyone as stupid as he pretends to be surely wouldn't be able to figure out how to get on the internet..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
@JesterAzazel
Again you have nothing to add to the discussion but your pointless, meandering series of assumptions and speculations about me. Eat my ass, you fucking troll. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you think this "lensing" exists, feel free to explain to everyone where it's taking place"
Googe image search: gravitational lensing..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
"dark matter"
Scientists say different things about dark matter but they all agree on one thing: There's something out there that we can't see.. Since they can't see it, they refer to it as "dark matter"..
Saying that dark matter doesn't exist is a tantamount of saying that you've seen everything in the universe..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
"Craters are not caused by falling rocks. Planets are not ""play-dough".
That's especially funny because if you throw a chunk of lead, you will see a small dent in the ground..
I know this because I recently found a chunk of lead weighting about 30-40 pounds, and when I dropped it, it made a dent in the ground..
Now imagine a "falling rock" with a MUCH greater weight..
Leave it to fertilizer to deny something that you can go prove in your back yard..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
ps..will we still be seeing u after 2012? fallatorspike...lol
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
amazing !
salchaw 1 year ago
1,337 views! ^.^
Very nice video!!!
ShadowReubenKee 1 year ago
Ahh Jesus more "electric universe" zombies. When will this fringe shit die. I thought science moved away from this sort of crap long ago. This is the modern equivalent of alchemy, a festering sore on the ass of actual science. Brane theory makes more sense than this.
Plasma is super heated gas, gas that has gotten so hot and into which so much energy has been transferred it has become ionized. The basic understanding of this is the flaw in the entire quackery that is the electric universe.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmperorofCartoons
Strange that you call it "fringe" when the electric universe boasts the single most successful track record for not only reasonably explaining observations but also predicting future discoveries.
Plasma is not "super heated gas", it is simply ionized or "charged" matter. You clearly don't know anything about plasma that wasn't told to you by your television.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike lol
It doesnt have any track record to speak of. It hasnt been able to successfully predict anything right. You think that black holes aren't real and saturns rings are just illusions when both things have been observed and are known to exist as a FACT.
Plasma is ionised matter. However, it is always a gas, and most plasma is formed at very high temperatures, (like that in the sun) or strong electrical discharges like lightning.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You are still unable to explain why, despite being a repulsive force as well as attractive, astronomical bodies are only ever seen attracting one another. There should be an equal amount of repelling being done, yet there is none whatsoever.
The sun is plasma, yes, however none of the planets are. No planet has an overall charge, and neither does the sun. YOU need charged bodies to exist, yet no charged astronomical body does.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
What power of telescope would be sufficient to view these nebulae?
h0lystrike 1 year ago
@h0lystrike To get the best image, these pictures are just false colour images using light from outside the visible spectrum.
Like the video said, you need infra-red or radio telescopes to see anything other than a dark cloud.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
Ears bleeding from sparkles sound effect;
butchdeadlift10 1 year ago
excellent.
bicnarok 1 year ago
Thank you, Jane Houston Jones! You've got a great job! Thanks for the information!
mallardhead 1 year ago
JPL - gisajob....please I'll work for peanuts.
NatureWasFirst 1 year ago
OMG, Astronomers found the Celestial Tea Pot!
FlowCell 1 year ago
I'm about to get into amateur astronomy and my first official purchase will be an Orion Skyquest XT-10 (Classic). Super... SUPER... excited.
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
@Krumbz2003
Thats a nice scope Krumbz - welcome to the wonderful world of the weary-eyed!
NatureWasFirst 1 year ago
@NatureWasFirst
Thanx dude!
Krumbz2003 1 year ago
Nicely narrated and composed
DaMav 1 year ago 2
This video repeats the popular fable that emission nebulae are "glowing gas" that's "excited" by some nearby source, in this case the suggestion is made that the source is "hot stars".
These nebular are not neutral "gas" and they are not lit because they are heated by nearby stars. The universe uses efficient phenomena, these nebulae are by electric discharge, not inefficient "heating" until they are hot enough to give off visible light.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike things dont need to be that hot to give of visible light.
The science behind all this is well understood and doesnt rely on magic like your electric universe.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago 4
@BlackRaptor31
There's nothing "magic" about electricity or the idea that over 99%% of the observable universe is plasma. Try and catch up.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike No there isnt anything magical about electricity. However, what electricity is, and what you think/want electricity to be are two very different things and the latter requires electricity to have properties which it doesn't have, ie magic.
Stars are made of plasma, big deal.
And what is plasma? Oh yes, superheated gas.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago 3
@BlackRaptor31
Plasma is not "superheated gas", plasma is ionized or "charged" matter. Plasmas are dominated by electric and magnetic forces, they ignore "gravity" models.
Why don't you explain what it is I've said about or want electricity to be that's magical. I'd venture to say you won't come up with anything, because you're talking out your ass. Gravity is not what you think/want it to be, it's a misunderstanding that explains nothing only shifts understanding further away.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike How do you think the elements are ionised? Its by heating it up to very high temperatures so that the electrons have enough energy to escape the electrostatic force holding them to the nucleus.
You havent been able to explain how electricity can take the place of gravity. Gravity only attracts, EM attracts and repels yet we only ever see attraction between astronomical bodies. Is the earth + and the sun -? What are we then? Also -'s? Then why dont we repel each other?
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike So, I know the EM force is both attractive and repulsive (attraction with -+ and +-) (repulsion with -- and ++) yet we never see planets repelling things, we never see stars repelling each other, we never see galaxies forcing each other away. They only ever attract. Something you cannot account for unless all these things have opposite charges.
Which they dont. None of them have any charge. They are all neutral. Gravity however, accounts for it all.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Every body in the solar system is made of matter, and most of them enjoy a "positive" charge with respect to the massive, weak radial electric field powering the sun. With respect to each other, the planets enjoy differing degrees of this "positive" charge. Suggesting the planets are "neutral" is absurd in the extreme. All matter enjoys some degree of electric charge. Nothing is truly "neutral" just as there is no "perfect vacuum".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike it doesnt need to be a perfect vacuum. Electrons are -ve, and protons are positive. All elements and molecules which are not ionised have an equal number of protons and electrons, thus their overall charge is 0.
Besides, that doesnt explain why the moon orbits the earth or why things fall when you drop them. It only (incorrectly) tries to explain the structure of the solar system.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike in order for us to be attracted to the "positive" earth, we would have to have an overall negative charge. That means that humans would repel each other, the sun and the moon which must all have -ve charges to be attracted to the earth. Yet we are not repelled by each other, and people have walked on the moon, so they couldnt of had the same charge.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Any time you have charged bodies able to interact electrically (as in a plasma), gravity is mooted, electromagnetic forces dominate. This is verified by repeated experiments that are readily reproduced.
Your claim that bodies must have "opposite charge" to be attracted toward each other is cartoonish and incomplete. Birkeland currents with identical "charges" and current densities are attracted toward each other as described by "gravity laws", yet the attraction is magnetic.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
The force between two birkeland currents causes them to twine and braid around each other, because it is attractive at a distance and repulsive as the filaments get very close together. We observe this in the lab, we observe braided filaments in space, the same forces are responsible for attraction between bodies in space, not this imaginary "force" called "gravity".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Try looking into the "gravity probe B" experiment, the researchers in charge of those experiments refer to "gravity" in terms of electric and magnetic effects, not this metaphysical notion with no empirical referent that is not tied in any way but philosophically to reality.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike They simply showed that gravity has a dragging effect similar to electromagnetism. No surprise there, as gravity cant go faster than light.
You've just managed to confuse yourself in ignorance. No surprises there either.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago 2
@fertilizerspike Um, in regard to the GP-B, the researchers most certainly do not refer to gravity in terms of electromagnetic forces. They describe gravity the way everybody doing General Relativity work does, with equations from Einstein, Lense and Thirring. What on Earth were you reading?
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Your repeated insistence that electricity is somehow "magic" is beyond laughable. If you're unable to discuss this subject at hand without continually referring to your assumptions and speculations and wishful thinking about me, I'll have to block you like I did all the other trolls.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike electricity isnt magic. What you want electricity to be is magic. I know what electricity really is. You want it to be something it is not. Plasma is a gas which has been heated up to temperatures high enough for it to be ionised. You think that because something now has a +ve charge, it now creates its own electricity.
First, explain how electrostatic forces can account for the purely attractive force between mass.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
I'll tell you again, there's nothing "magic" about electricity in space. Plasmas are not merely "a gas which has been heated up", heat is irrelevant. Plasmas are ionized or "charged" matter, and by all accounts it's the fundamental state of matter, over 99% of matter in the universe exists in this state. It really is an electric plasma universe.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike 99% of matter exists in stars. Stars are made of plasma. Nobody, since the discovery of the make-up of stars has said otherwise. However, what you are doing is saying elements and molecules with a +ve charge suddenly create electricity from nothing and use only half of the force to attract, and ignoring the laws of physics, and never repel.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago 2
@BlackRaptor31
I didn't say anything about "electrostatic forces", and to be honest I'm not sure what you mean by "electrostatic". I wasn't aware electricity could be "static". Maybe you could try to explain it again so it's not too confusing for me.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Also, how does plasma ignore gravity models? Gravity is a very weak force and just isnt used for things like plasma unless there is enough of it to have a large enough mass (like with the sun)
For things to be attracted to each other with the EM force, there must first be an overall charge on the body. Both the sun and the earth (and any other body in the solar system) has no overall charge, thus cannot be attracted to each other using your theory, unless electricity is magic.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
It's firmly-established by laboratory experiment that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, and are dominated by electric and magnetic forces, which affect plasmas at least thirty times more strongly than does this imaginary "force" called "gravity". That's is "how plasma ignores gravity models". Electric and magnetic forces dominate the universe on every scale.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike well obviously. Gravity is weak. Electromagnetism is magnitudes of strength stronger. Thus anything which has an overall charge is going to be dominated by the EM force. However, plasma is still matter, and when you have a sufficient quantity it is observed obeying gravity (like in stars)
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
The sun and the planets all enjoy an electric charge. The radial electric field powering the sun causes "double layers" in the plasma around the sun. Each "layer" enjoys a drastically different charge than the next, and most of the voltage potential exists right at the boundary layers. Bodies within each layer thus enjoy different "charge" than bodies in other layers. One such layer is near the orbit of Jupiter, where some comets are known to flare.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike except the sun and the planets dont have an electric charge...
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 Bingo. To the electric universe believers, plasma is their holy grail, and electricity their philosophers stone. It is the modern day equivalent of alchemy for astrophysics. While some useful ideas will no doubt evolve from it, it has no real basis as a theory explaining the things it claims to explain.
Essentially the electric universe theory is:
1: Plasma can be made with electricity
2: The universe has a lot of plasma in it.
3: ???
4: Profit
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@EmperorofCartoons
There's nothing about plasma or electricity that is like a "holy grail", these phenomena are well-understood and readily reproducible.
It is the only contemporary cosmology that's rooted in experimental verification and direct observation, not speculation and wishful imagining.
Your summary should be more like this:
1. over 99% of the universe is plasma
2. plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces and ignore gravity
3. over 99% of the universe ignores gravity
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike point 2 is incorrect. It doesnt ignore gravity. Gravity acts on mass. EM only acts on charges. Stars are not charged, but they do have mass thus they obey gravity.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
It's not incorrect, you're just ignorant.
Do some research, learn the properties and behaviours of plasmas, then we can discuss this intelligently. Until then, your position of weakness (ignorance) does neither of us any good.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I know how plasma works and behaves. You clearly dont as you seem to thing that a plasma lamp is a good example of a star.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
1 2 and 3 are also wrong. Baryonic matter (e.g. stars) are not even 5% of the universe.
If the universe had ignored gravity if would not be so flat and wouldnt have had last so long.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
No, they're not wrong, they simply conflict with your beliefs.
It's been shown by repeated observations that plasma accounts for well over 99% of the observable universe. Only ignorant astronogers and the people who share their belief systems believe in "dark matter" and "dark energy" being over 95% of the universe, leave it to the delusional to imagine the vast majority of the universe is unobservable. That's not science, it's pathological.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike You still cant spell astronomers right...
WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density. Thus only 4.6% of the universe can be made out of stuff we can observe directly.
Oh, you still havent explained away gravitational lensing as an observed phenomenon. We have seen galaxies bend light around them. You cant explain that with your magic electromagnets either.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
I can spell astronomers just fine, what you fail to realize is that astronogers are not astronomers, they are not scientists.
The universe is not "flat". Is this like flat-Earth or what? Give me a break.
Your claim that we can only directly observe less than 5% of the universe is absurd on its face. Astronogers rely on "unobservable" matter and phenomena to explain what they don't understand.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been shown to have any such effect on light, electromagnetic forces can, however, bend and even polarize light, not "gravity".
Such lensing in space is speculative. Assuming you know light is "bent" when you don't know the initial conditions is like suggesting train cars are missing from a train you've never seen before.
Electromagnetic forces CAN explain lensing, but we haven't verified any such lensing yet.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike photons dont have a charge. They cant be "lensed" by magnetism. Deny it all you like, but gravitational lensing has been observed. Light bends around objects with a high gravitational field (stars, black holes and galaxies have all been seen to lense light)
Its well understood, and well documented and complies completely with the theory of relativity and gravity. Just like all the evidence gathered so far.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Apparently you're not familiar with the "zeeman effect" or the "faraday effect", which deal with bending and polarizing of light by electromagnetic forces. Your belief is not required.
No such "lensing" in space has ever been verified. In every case where "lensing" is said to take place, we have no knowledge of the state of the light we're observing before it reaches us, assuming it in a previously different state is like assuming cars are missing from a train you've never seen.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Wrong, yet again. The Zeeman Effect applies to emitted light, the magnetism acts on the source atom, not the photon. And the Faraday Effect is only valid for propagation of light in a medium (once again, acting on mater not the light) and leads to a phase rotation, not refraction. Unless you can provide a paper, I have yet to (and likely never will knowing you) see ANY material suggesting an EM alternative to gravitational lensing observations.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Despite your insistence, there is absolutely no evidence that gravity can "bend" light. This is nonsensical metaphysical speculation that has never been verified by experiment or observations.
Presumed lensing in space, if it even takes place, is electromagnetic in nature, not due to "gravity" somehow "bending space". It has never been verified, if it ever was verified, electromagnetic explanations would suffice without inventing "bent space".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike For starters, the picture taken by the Hubble telescope of galaxy cluster Abell 1689 in 2004 is observational evidence of gravitational lensing.
Yes, look up Abell 1689. It is a real galaxy cluster and the picture of it is real.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Gravity can bend light. You are a liar when you say scientists have never observed this phenomenon. But i am talking to some fuckwit who thinks he is superior in mind than of people like Einstein and Hawking.
You are a nobody and your claims should not be taken seriously based on no evidence whatsoever. Isn't that right "Mr Electroverse".
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike I'm curious, did you ever look up the pictures taken by Hubble of Abell 1689 that shows gravitational lensing?
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
If you think this "lensing" exists, feel free to explain to everyone where it's taking place, surely astronogers have named them, like they did "einstein cross". Oh, don't mention "einstein cross", that has been shown to be give objects in physical contact with one another, not two objects, one in front of the other in perfect alignment with our line of sight.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
ELECTROMAN (fertilizerspike) is back everyone.
This guy dismisses gravity as a force of nature.
He also thinks the "pioneer anomaly" proves this.
He has been watching too much "Project Camelot" IMO
He is a narcissist who can not be reasoned with.
Do not waste your time on this nut job.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@ScienceIsKnowledge
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike hello again u wrongheaded fool! we always seem to be bumping into each other.
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
@jeebersjumpincryst
Eat my ass, you fucking troll. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "Oh, don't mention "einstein cross", that has been shown to be objects in physical contact with one another"
Do you actually have a source on that? Because, once again, none of the papers or journals I have access to mention this problem.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 Dude you are wasting your time arguing with the aptyl named "Fertilizer" there. Pseudo scientist aficionados are like religious nuts, you cant argue anything with them using facts because the very nature of their belief system disregards the facts you use.
Its like arguing with a conspiracy fanatic. They will always just claim whatever you say is a part of the conspiracy you have "fallen" for.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@EmperorofCartoons A lot of people who follow plasma cosmology are in fact conspiracy theorist.
If you go to websites supporting plasma cosmology, you will see the same type of denial that you get from fertilizerspike.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordBrakensiek
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmperorofCartoons
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 Notice how he claims that gravitational lensing, which has been observed several times and verified to exist, doesnt exist because we dont know the "state" of the light before it was observed. Which itself depends on his own chosen pseudo science's theories that light has some other state to be observed in. Instead of providing proof that this is so, he attack the accepted fact that it isnt.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
@EmperorofCartoons He claims gravitational lensing is just hypothetical and doesn't really exist. At the same time he claims the bending of light is caused by electromagnetism.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike First off, general relativity predicted that gravity can bend light. There was no empirical proof until gravitational lensing was first observed.
Abell 1689 is a gravitational lensed object. I'm not going to repeat this again.
LordBrakensiek 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
There's no experimental verification of the notion that "gravity" can bend light. If you know of some experiments that showed that, feel free to cite them here.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Astronomy... all astronomy, is an observational science. Your precious theory is just as enthralled by this limit as any other. By demanding experimentation you deny your own position... because no matter what plasma does in the lab (something I know you don't actually know) the fact that you can't put a star in a test tube means your claims are no less theoretical prediction than anyone else's.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AutodidacticPhd
If you wish to practice astronomy as a science, you need to verify your claims with experiments, not just observation. Without controlled experimental conditions, you are not practicing science, it's just star gazing and story telling. It's more like astrology than astronomy, hence the term "astronogers".
Go do some more research before you run your mouth about this. Virtually all electric phenomena we observe in space has been replicated in the lab. We can simulate stars.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AutodidacticPhd
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - CJ Ransom's electric cratering experiments, electric discharge machined craters verified
o - Kristian Birkeland's "terella" experiments, electric aurorae verified
o - Wal Thornhill's "deep impact" predictions, electric comet model verified
o - CJ Ransom's electrically fused spherules, electrically machined "mars blueberries" verified (also "moquid marbles", "thunderstones", et al)
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fertilizerspike
MORE EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - CJ Ransom's electric rilles, electric scarring of Europa verified
o - Boyd Bushman "electrogravity" experiments, electromagnetic forces govern falling bodies verified
o - Ralph Sansbury "pocket cell" experiments, falsifies "speed of light" and propagation models
o - CJ Ransom "electric wind" experiments, electric discharge produces observed stellar phenomena verified
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fertilizerspike
MORE EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - René-Louis Vallée's tokamak experiments, plasma fusion verified, supports that fundamental forces are emergent from electromagnetic forces
o - Miller-Urey amino acids experiment, electric comet verified
o - CJ Ransom's "domed craters" experiments, electric discharge craters verified
o - LIGO experiments, "gravity waves" falsified
o - Kristian Birkeland's "saturn" experiments, plasma rings of Saturn verified
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fertilizerspike
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY FROM NOBEL PRIZE WINNER HANNES ALFVEN:
o - electrical origin of "cosmic rays" verified
o - electrical nature of aurorae verified
o - electric generation of Earth's magnetic field verified
o - electrical nature of sunspots verified
o - electrical nature of "van allen belts" verified
Hannes Alfven could very well be the single most important individual who has ever lived regarding plasma cosmology.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "...I could probably make 50 posts."
I'm sure you could... just as I'm sure that like all the rest of your posts, not one of them would contain an actual citation to an actual source, because I suspect that you haven't ever read a single scientific paper in your life. You're obviously just quoting lists from some Electric Universe svengalli, as you obviously couldn't understand the original material even if you could find it.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
Since you chose to abuse the spam flagging process to try to bury all the evidence I cited for you, I posted it all again below. Have fun reading it all and doing the research to verify the things I've said. Come back in a few years when you're all caught up and we can continue your education.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike "Since you chose to abuse the spam flagging process..."
Guess what. I have never once flagged your material as spam. In fact, I'm often unflagging your stuff. You really need to realize that your personal paranoias do not amount to actual information. Neither does your pathetic list of claims count as either verification , citation or source references, and if you had an education even half equal to your ego, you'd know that.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
I've done the same thing, unflagged opposing views because they were not spam. As for "personal paranoia", clearly you haven't seen the comments directed toward me announcing baldly the intention to abuse the spam flagging feature. Either that or you're being willfully ignorant. I've cited abundant sources of this information, but I can't force you to research them. If you choose to ignore them, that's on you.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Look, I'm tired of this. Nothing you have posted, as far as I can see, is anything like a real citation. And in those rare cases where you at least mention a name, half the material you seem to be referring to is irrelevant, and the rest just demonstrates your ignorance of the material itself, or your reliance on well known conspiracy theorists. If you actually bother to show any change in this respect, I may bother looking at it... but I have no more time for your nonsense.
AutodidacticPhd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
Don't blame me for your inability to do the research to verify what I've said.
I've never once mentioned "conspiracy theory", you must have me confused with either yourself or any of the other half dozen morons who've been shouting "conspiracy theory" ever since I first started posting.
If you want sources to verify claims I've made, feel free to identify which claims and I'll be more than happy to help you, again.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
If you wish to practice astronomy as a science, you need to verify your claims with experiments, not just observation. Without controlled experimental conditions, you are not practicing science, it's just star gazing and story telling. It's more like astrology than astronomy, hence the term "astronogers".
Go do some more research before you run your mouth about this. Virtually all electric phenomena we observe in space has been replicated in the lab. We can simulate stars.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AutodidacticPhd
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - CJ Ransom's electric cratering experiments, electric discharge machined craters verified
o - Kristian Birkeland's "terella" experiments, electric aurorae verified
o - Wal Thornhill's "deep impact" predictions, electric comet model verified
o - CJ Ransom's electrically fused spherules, electrically machined "mars blueberries" verified (also "moquid marbles", "thunderstones", et al)
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
MORE EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - CJ Ransom's electric rilles, electric scarring of Europa verified
o - Boyd Bushman "electrogravity" experiments, electromagnetic forces govern falling bodies verified
o - Ralph Sansbury "pocket cell" experiments, falsifies "speed of light" and propagation models
o - CJ Ransom "electric wind" experiments, electric discharge produces observed stellar phenomena verified
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
MORE EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY:
o - René-Louis Vallée's tokamak experiments, plasma fusion verified, supports that fundamental forces are emergent from electromagnetic forces
o - Miller-Urey amino acids experiment, electric comet verified
o - CJ Ransom's "domed craters" experiments, electric discharge craters verified
o - LIGO experiments, "gravity waves" falsified
o - Kristian Birkeland's "saturn" experiments, plasma rings of Saturn verified
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF PLASMA COSMOLOGY FROM NOBEL PRIZE WINNER HANNES ALFVEN:
o - electrical origin of "cosmic rays" verified
o - electrical nature of aurorae verified
o - electric generation of Earth's magnetic field verified
o - electrical nature of sunspots verified
o - electrical nature of "van allen belts" verified
Hannes Alfven could very well be the single most important individual who has ever lived regarding plasma cosmology.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek said:
"Abell 1689 is a gravitational lensed object."
Your bald assertion that "Abell 1689" is a "lensed object" is not convincing to me. Astronogers say this object is "warping space" because there are "curved" objects near it.
No effort is made by astronogers to rule out other causes for this "curvature" of objects, which is interpreted by astronogers as "curvature of space". Space is a virtual coordinate system, it can not be "curved" by matter.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Halton Arp discovered many things about "abell clusters". They have few "normal" galaxies. They occur in lines. They "cluster" around active galaxies like "QSO" do. They're often "paired" around such galaxies. They display absolutely no "hubble relationship" (redshift=distance=velocit=age). They are "bridged" by matter emitting x-rays. If "lensing" was responsible the incidence would increase with fainter magnitudes, instead it levels off. "Gravitational lensing" is wrong.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
FAG TROLL
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Plasma pinches demonstrate both radial and concentric filamentary structures. This is what we see in "abell clusters", not "gravitational lensing" but a plasma pinch, an effect of electric discharge in plasma.
Circular morphology is exhibited because we have an axial view of it. We observe the same phenomenon in the lab. The "hot gas" interpretation of these objects is also a physically flawed model, this is plasma at work, not "hot gas" and "gravitational lensing".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
TROLLING
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Astronogers are willfully blind to electrical effects in space. I can't say why.
When they see "abell 1689" they see high "redshift" in the "curved" objects, that tells them old age, vast distance, high recessional velocity, older. This "redshift" indicates a very YOUNG age of highly ionized plasma.
Astronogers can only summon up "gravity lensing" to explain their "distance", electric universe explains this as recently-ejected material.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
TROLL
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScienceIsKnowledge
Eat my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
Astronogers can only explain what they see as a preposterously large yet for some reason not visible mass because they ignore electrical effects in space. What we can see in "abell 1689" is about 1% of the mass astronogers claim is there causing this "gravity lensing". It's absurd on its face to suggest 99% of ANYTHING is unobservable "dark matter". Gravity models are wrong, they routinely fail, "dark matter" was invented ad hoc to kludge it to fit the observations.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@LordBrakensiek
Yes there is TROLL
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ScienceIsKnowledge
Eat my ass, you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmperorofCartoons
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 People like him are just like those fundamentalists who think red shift can be caused by "slow light": even though no such thing has ever been remotely demonstrated to be possible.
These people pick a theory that either sounds cool or supports their world view and try to find ways of supporting it instead of observing and trying to theorize what caused their observation
They have the scientific method ass backwards.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EmperorofCartoons
Still waiting for instances of this "gravitational lensing" that have been "verified". Feel free to post those up any time.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Okay so if dark matter does not exist, how do you explain flat rotation curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing effects (which have been observed since 1921 on and on) seeding of nucleosynthesis and condensation of population III -stars?
You can calculate the curvature of the universe by Friedmann-equations and it is confirmed by WMAP observations.
btw: Dark Matter is not unobservable...it isn't just luminous. Dark Energy is a different story.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
Galaxies are homopolar motors, driven by electric discharge, not gravity. We don't have to imagine "black hole" in the center or "dark matter" sprinkled wherever gravity models continue to fail in order to explain the shape and motion of galaxies, electric and magnetic forces dominate.
As for the "curvature of the universe", I'm not even going to address here how idiotic the very notion of the universe being "curved" is.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
As for "gravitational lensing", gravity has never been verified to have any such effect on light. In fact every relevant experiment ever performed suggests gravity has NO effect on light. Electromagnetic forces can bend light, however, as well as polarize it.
If you know of some experiments (not just observation and speculation) that show such an effect, please cite them here.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@VannevarBush
1. The universe is filled with plasma, over 99% of the observable universe is matter in a plasma state.
2. Plasmas are negligibly affected by "gravity", they ignore the dictates of gravity models and instead are dominated by electric and magnetic forces.
3. The universe is dominated on every scale by electric and magnetic forces, well over 99% of the observable universe does not follow "gravity" models.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@EmperorofCartoons
You could also continue it:
4. every light we see in space is lit electrically
5. stars are powered by electric discharge
6. craters are caused by electric discharge
7. planets form in electric discharges
8. galaxies are transient plasma instabilities
9. electric and magnetic forces dominate the universe on every scale (across at least forty orders of magnitude)
All this is verified experimentally as valid, none requires assumption of facts not in evidence.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are all wrong.
4)Light from stars is powered by nuclear fusion. That is well understood and accounts for all the evidence.
5)again wrong, see 4)
6)no they are not. Craters are caused by collisions between say a planet and an meteor. This has been observed.
7)no they dont. We have never seen a planet form, and electrical discharges dont create matter
8)wrong again, galaxies are a collection of stars orbiting a common centre of mass
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
No, they're not wrong, they just contradict your beliefs. Stellar fusion has been falsified by many lines of evidence. Stellar fusion can not reasonably account for any observed features of the sun. Stars are powered by electric discharge.
Craters are not caused by falling rocks, they are caused by electric discharges. Everywhere we find craters we find no rocks fallen from space, everywhere we see rocks fallen from space we see no craters. Your beliefs are falsified.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike lol wut? when meteor impacts happen on earth they leave craters. This cannot be denied because people have actually seen the impact.
But you can do an experiment. Get some play-dough, make a blob then drop a rock on it.
You'll see that the play-dough gets a dent where the rock lands. Same sort of thing when asteroids hit planets.
Craters are the remains of an impact. You dont need to have a continuous falling of rocks. Your logic is flawed.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
No crater has ever been observed as a result of a meteorite impact. Everywhere we find meteorites we find no craters, everywhere we find craters we find no meteorites. Craters are not caused by falling rocks. Planets are not ""play-dough".
We observe many things that falsify impact models:
o - craters on rims of craters
o - overlapping craters
o - aligned craters
o - flat crater floors
o - steep crater walls
o - raised central pylons
None have impact model explanations.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Yes craters have been observed.
Crater rims with craters? Smaller rocks hit the edge of the impact site of a bigger roct.
Overlapping craters? rocks hitting in almost the same place
aligned craters? Yes, what exactly do you even mean by that? Rocks landing next to each other?
Flat crater floors? Erosion, time, +they are never really flat
Crater walls? Easy, that fits the fact that craters are impact sites.
We have never seen electricity or plasma make craters...
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
You're simply wrong. Impact models do not adequately explain the overwhelming majority of craters we observe in the universe. Impact models can't explain the various features of observed craters without repeated ad hoc and peculiar conditions necessary for which there is no evidence. All these "anomalous" features of craters find reasonable explanations if we conclude they were carved and blasted by electric discharges.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Craters with smaller craters are their rims are readily explained in terms of electric discharge. The rims are higher, that's where quenching discharges strike after the main strike.
Overlapping craters is a common phenomenon in electric discharge machining, very uncommon from "random" scattering of falling rocks. Overlapping craters are very common on bodies in space.
Steep walls and flat floors: more verification of electric discharge machining, no as hoc conditions to meet
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fertilizerspike
"No crater has ever been observed as a result of a meteorite impact. Everywhere we find meteorites we find no craters, everywhere we find craters we find no meteorites. Craters are not caused by falling rocks. Planets are not ""play-dough"."
BRAVO!
You just wrote that yourself right?
Now read it back and see if you piss yourself laughing much like my reaction to this bullshit. As many have said before, obvious troll is obvious.
ScienceIsKnowledge 1 year ago
@ScienceIsKnowledge
I see you have nothing to refute the information I've given so you again stoop to name-calling and cheerleading. No surprise.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike stellar fusion has never been falsified. You have never been able to put any evidence forward as to how it has, and interestingly you have never been able to explain away my pointing out of the flaws in your hypothesis. Why does all matter attract? You cant answer that. You've never even tried. EM attracts and repels yet planets, stars and galaxies are only ever seen attracting. You are wrong.
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
Yes, stellar fusion is falsified, many times over.
Sunspots reveal the surface of the sun is cooler than the photosphere above it. If the sun were powered internally by any means, this would not be the case, it would be hotter under the photosphere, not cooler. This one observation falsifies stellar fusion. Ignore it at your intellectual peril. That's one fact that's never going to change, the sun is not powered internally (by fusion or any other means). The sun is electric.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
You are possibly the dumbest person ever.
Sunspots do not prove that the sun isn't heated from inside, anymore than a glacier proves that the earth isn't heated from the inside. Both are naturally occurring phenomena as a result of the energy transfers on the surface of turbulently heated bodies.
You cannot POSSIBLY believe that stellar fusion has been falsified. There is overwhelming evidence for it. You must be fucking with people.
supowit 1 year ago 13
@supowit
You betray your ignorance when you make claims like that.
Sunspots reveal a cooler surface beneath the photosphere. Feel free to explain why it does not. The Earth is heated externally by the sun, a wood stove is heated internally. Stoves don't have glaciers on them, and the temperature doesn't drop as you get closer to it. Kindly pull your head out of your ass. Did you even think about this shit or just blurt it out. Rhetorical question.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Um, no. There is no point in arguing with you. Stupidity like yours is stubborn and knows no bounds.
Good luck in crazy land, Mr. "I'm smarter than all of the physicists of the past hundred years."
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit
There definitely is no point in arguing with me, because I'm not going to argue with you. Shut up and take notes and try and learn something, that's my advice.
I never said I was "smarter than all of the physicists of the past hundred years". For one thing, most physicists agree with me. Belief in "big bang", in "dark matter", in "dark energy", in "black hole", in the idea that space is filled with "gas" and not plasma disqualifies one as a scientist (or physicist for that matter).
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Wrong on so many counts:
1- The earth is heated both internally AND externally.
2- A number of cool spots on the sun surface indicates heterogeneity of plasmic buildup.
3- The rest of the sun surface is hotter than sunspots, and hotter than the photosphere.
4- The internal temperature of the sun exceeds the surface temperature by millions of degrees.
5- The presence of the fusion series of elements within the sun, and within EVERY star indicates internal fusion.
You-science: F
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit
1- The Earth is heated externally, not internally.
2- The "cool spots" on the sun indicate the surface is cooler than the photosphere above it, falsifying stellar fusion models.
3- Your speculation that sunspots reveal peculiarly cool spots is unfounded, the entire surface is as "cool" as sunspots are. The photosphere is NOT the surface.
4- The "internal temperature" of the sun has been erroneously derived using black body formulae.
5- Electric discharges transmute matter.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
YOU ARE HIGH!!! ELECTRIC CHARGES TRANSMUTE MATTER????
No one has EVER observed electric charge transmuting matter! Nuclear Fusion, FIssion, and decay are The ONLY observed processes leading to change in nuclear charge!
HOLY SHIT! If you are serious, you should flagellate yourself.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit
Actually you're wrong, electric discharge is known to transmute elements. Lightning can transmute oxygen atoms into sulfur, for example.
There are even industrial processes where this phenomenon is exploited.
You might also want to check into all the research into "sustained" fusion, all of which exploit electric and magnetic fields to initiate and sustain fusion.
Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Furthermore (I have no idea why I'm doing this), if the earth were heated only from external sources, the temperature gradient would uniformly decrease from the surface to the core. This is exactly opposite of the case. Any fucking 9th grader could tell you that.
supowit 1 year ago
@supowit
Sorry, one mistake. Electron or positron absorption can change nuclear charge, but beta absorption would DECREASE nuclear charge, which would make no sense as a solar process given the evidence, and positron absorption is a ridiculous idea, since positrons would first be attracted to electrons and cause obliteration rather than hit the positively charged nucleus of an atom and transform a neutron into a proton.
I can't believe I just wasted my time explaining that.
supowit 1 year ago