Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?

Electric Universe is most wholly based in observational data. All manner of observable formations in the cosmos have been reproduced in the lab.

This is not so for current Big G. Its theory is contradicted on a daily basis through observation. I could place any number of article links to assert that.

Mainstream science loads them daily. Gravity alone does not guide the Universe.

that's the way it is, there it goes... flaws and inconsistencies are recognized by many, yet the same will stick to the mainstream interpretations.

scientism has ravaged many minds

Your hard data is the light switch on your wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Electric Universe is most wholly based in observational data. All manner of observable formations in the cosmos have been reproduced in the lab.

This is not so for current Big G. Its theory is contradicted on a daily basis through observation. I could place any number of article links to assert that.

Mainstream science loads them daily. Gravity alone does not guide the Universe.

---

And??? Where is the mathematical data to back up the claim that the universe is powering the electric sun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singular_me

that's the way it is, there it goes... flaws and inconsistencies are recognized by many, yet the same will stick to the mainstream interpretations.

scientism has ravaged many minds

---

It's already been proven that you believe in bullshit fantasies. Yon cannot provide even the simplest explanation of how or why anyone would work for free. When I want to listen to bullshit I'll ask you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Your hard data is the light switch on your wall.

---

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?

I'll wait for the mathematical equations which will never arrive. I never knew you to believe in fantasies. I know Goldie has her issues of believing in absolute bullshit.


You disappoint me Horn, these are basic fundamental questions and yet not you or the Electronic Universe can even answer them.

For the record I did not call Ares a retard. I said he and mainstream science were retarded.

There is a difference here, no matter how slight. If noticed it could make a difference between Electric Universe theory and their lights coming on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?

I'll wait for the mathematical equations which will never arrive. I never knew you to believe in fantasies. I know Goldie has her issues of believing in absolute bullshit.


You disappoint me Horn, these are basic fundamental questions and yet not you or the Electronic Universe can even answer them.

---

the equtions are all easily observable and already exist. E.U. theory has the known flash points of plasma charted. Their exact scalular relation to mass has not yet been pinpointed in the field.

Generally speaking they are as standard related to as 110v AC charts wiring diagrams any filamentary type bulb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

For the record I did not call Ares a retard. I said he and mainstream science were retarded.

There is a difference here, no matter how slight. If noticed it could make a difference between Electric Universe theory and their lights coming on.

---

And if the theory cannot survive the scientific method then it's junk. The theory has to be able to answer fundamental questions, be measured and have collaborative evidence so that others can see the data for themselves. Not rely on conjecture and assumptions.

Electric Universe = Solution looking for a problem to fit the solution.

Until I see hard data (lights turning on can be measured) this theory is total junk science and does not survive even basic scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

the equtions are all easily observable and already exist. E.U. theory has the known flash points of plasma charted. Their exact scalular relation to mass has not yet been pinpointed in the field.

Generally speaking they are as standard related to as 110v AC charts wiring diagrams any filamentary type bulb.

---

They are not standard as I haven't seen a single equation backing up E.U. theory.

Not one, and I've been looking for most of the day.

Testing the Electric Universe

There’s a cosmological model that has gained popularity on the internet known as the Electric Universe. The basic claim of the Electric Universe model is that much of the astronomical phenomena observed in the universe is driven by electrical interactions rather than gravitational ones. Proponents of the model claim that the Electric Universe is a much simpler solution that solves many of the cosmic mysteries mainstream astro-scientists are unable to solve. The model is so simple that it doesn’t require any of that mathematical obfuscation found in the standard model. But astro-scientists are too set in their ways to look at the model with an open mind. We certainly can’t ignore such a revolutionary idea, so let’s put it to the test.

There are actually many variations to the Electric Universe model, but the most popular version seems to focus around the book by Thornhill and Talbot listed below. It is this basic model I’ll discuss here, using the references listed at the bottom of the post. If you want to get an overview of the model, Findlay’s ebook (available for free) is as good a reference as any. The basic idea of this particular model is that cosmic magnetic fields interact with interstellar plasma to drive astrophysical processes. Gravitational interactions play a negligible role in the universe. From this idea several claims and predictions are made. In particular:

Neither dark matter nor dark energy exist. Black holes don’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen.

Galaxies are formed by kinks in cosmic magnetic fields. They begin as electric quasars which then expand into modern galaxies.

Stars are electrically charged masses formed within galactic plasmas. They are not heated by nuclear fusion within their core, but rather by a flow of plasma, similar to a florescent light.

Stars “give birth” electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.

Redshift is not a measure of galactic distance. It is instead a measure of galactic age.

Special Relativity is wrong. General Relativity is wrong.

So, where to begin? Let’s start with the Sun. In the standard model, the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion in its core. There the fusion of hydrogen into helium produces not only light and heat, but neutrinos. In the electric universe model, the Sun is lit by electrically excited plasma. This gives us two very clear predictions. The first is regarding neutrinos. The standard model predicts that the Sun will produce copious amounts of neutrinos due to nuclear interactions in its core. The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos. The EU model clearly fails this test, because neutrinos are produced by the Sun. We have not only observed solar neutrinos, we have imaged the Sun by its neutrinos.

The second prediction regarding the Sun can be seen in its spectrum. In the standard model, the nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core produce light and heat that cause the star to shine. If this is the case, then Sun should emit thermal radiation. In other words, the spectrum of colors its gives off should be an almost continuous, with dark lines where cooler gasses in its upper atmosphere absorb some of the light. If instead the Sun were lit by electrically excited plasma, as the EU model predicts, the spectrum should be a discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Plasma discharges do not emit a continuous spectrum of light. Of course, what we see is a continuous spectrum as the standard model predicts. Once again, the EU model fails.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpe...es_Jan3-07.jpg
Top: The nearly continuous spectrum of the Sun. Bottom: The bright line spectrum of a compact florescent light. Credit: John P. Beale

Unlike the neutrino observations, the solar spectrum has been well observed since the 1800s. Long before the EU model was ever proposed. It is a test you can do at home with a diffraction grating. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Sun gives off a thermal spectrum, not a plasma one.

But lest we be accused of not giving the Electric Universe model a fair shake, let’s look at the other claims. Are special and general relativity wrong? Nope. They’ve been confirmed in the lab. In fact whenever you use your mobile phone’s GPS to find a local coffee shop, you’re communicating with satellites that correct for the effects general and special relativity. Relativity is not merely abstract theory, it is now applied technology.

How about the idea that stars “give birth” to other stars and planets? If that were the case, we should see stars form as isolated objects in stellar nurseries, then later form planetary systems. Instead, what we see is protostars form with protoplanetary disks of gas and dust out of which planets form. We’ve observed these at various stages of development around different stars, and even have dozens of examples in the Orion nebula, which is a nearby stellar nursery.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpe...rninbeauty.jpg

It doesn’t look good for the Electric Universe model. But let’s give it one last chance. In the standard model galaxies form gravitationally, and are well developed relatively early in the universe. Quasars are powered by black holes in the center of galaxies, and are one example of what we call active galactic nuclei. In the EU model, quasars are formed by pinches in cosmic magnetic fields, and from them galaxies form. Rather than being an indication of distance, redshift is a result of the age of a galaxy or quasar. So as galaxy matures, its redshift decreases. If the EU model is right, then we should only see quasars with high redshifts (therefore large inferred distances). Also, the more distant (redshifted) a galaxy, the less developed it should appear.

https://2ai9u93bg0gn4e99nu2g8mbj-wpe.../p0829-a-w.jpg

So here’s a collection of barred spirals at different distances (or redshifts). Notice how the most distant ones are the least developed? No? Actually they all look pretty similar, which is exactly what the standard model predicts, and what the EU model says absolutely shouldn’t happen. By the way, the nearest quasar observed (3C 273) is only about 2.4 billion light years away, which means it has a smaller observed redshift than three of these fully developed galaxies. Again in complete contradiction to the EU model.

So never let it be said that an astro-scientist has never considered the electric universe model with an open mind. The Electric Universe model is wrong. Provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.

We’ve put the Electric Universe to the test. Final Grade: F-

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/2...tric-universe/

Quote:

---

The EU model predicts the Sun should produce no neutrinos.

---

Objection - conjecture!

Nowhere is there a "prediction" that "No Neutrinos should be byproduct from the Sun in Electric Universe".

The standard model requires them, and finds a crutch at their existing.

Coronal anomaly is all that E.U. theory claims,

and should also be the claim in the standard model, as its obvious they're just guessing and their model is full of holes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Objection - conjecture!

Nowhere is there a "prediction" that "No Neutrinos should be byproduct from the Sun in Electric Universe".

The standard model requires them, and finds a crutch at their existing.

Coronal anomaly is all that E.U. theory claims,

and should also be the claim in the standard model, as its obvious they're just guessing and their model is full of holes.

---

Ummmm neutrinos are a byproduct of nuclear reactions. If the sun is not nuclear and is electric there should be no neutrinos.

Common sense and logic are really difficult for the Electric Universe proponents eh?

Thats just one of the many flaws I've seen with E.U.

So the closest Qasar is supposedly 2.4 Billion Lightyears away? How come there aren't any closer than that? Redshift measurements for distance is a problem in itself, as redshift may also be caused by the mass of the object, iow the larger the mass, the more pull the object will have on the light it emits and thus the more redshifted. There are several objects observed in space that are obviously physically connected (satellite galaxies), that have vastly different redshifts, which would suggest they are billions of lightyears away from each other. This strongly suggest that redshift isn't a reliable method to determine distance, further it is a nail in the coffin of an expanding Big Bang universe.

I do think electric universe theory does provide an attractive alternative, to the undetectable and untraceable dark matter and dark energy necessitating a Big Bang gravity only universe, with galaxy centers consisting of black holes, where instead of galaxies being eaten up by a black hole they are created in a whirlwind of plasma, pulled together by a genormous magnet. However sometimes humanity seems to want to throw out the baby with the bath water, EU doesn't mean that everything gravity fusion related is bunk, why does everything has to be so damn simple? It is probably way more complex than we can imagine, stupid!

I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

So the closest Qasar is supposedly 2.4 Billion Lightyears away? How come there aren't any closer than that? Redshift measurements for distance is a problem in itself, as redshift may also be caused by the mass of the object, iow the larger the mass, the more pull the object will have on the light it emits and thus the more redshifted. There are several objects observed in space that are obviously physically connected (satellite galaxies), that have vastly different redshifts, which would suggest they are billions of lightyears away from each other. This strongly suggest that redshift isn't a reliable method to determine distance, further it is a nail in the coffin of an expanding Big Bang universe.

I do think electric universe theory does provide an attractive alternative, to the undetectable and untraceable dark matter and dark energy necessitating a Big Bang gravity only universe, with galaxy centers consisting of black holes, where instead of galaxies being eaten up by a black hole they are created in a whirlwind of plasma, pulled together by a genormous magnet. However sometimes humanity seems to want to throw out the baby with the bath water, EU doesn't mean that everything gravity fusion related is bunk, why does everything has to be so damn simple? It is probably way more complex than we can imagine, stupid!

I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution.

---

I'm open to alternative theories, but they have to line up with observable data as well have equations that back up the observed behavior. Without that, it's just guessing.....

Here is a qasar that is only some 300 million light years away (if that is correct?), but according to redshift appears to be 10 billion light years away.

http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I'm open to alternative theories, but they have to line up with observable data as well have equations that back up the observed behavior. Without that, it's just guessing.....

---

I agree. It is perhaps just a matter of convincing a brilliant mathematician to give up his life career with salaries in astrophysics to come up with a viable equation for a partial proof of electrical university. I can barely multiply...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

If the sun is not nuclear and is electric there should be no neutrinos.

---

This is leading conjecture, neutrinos can very well also be a byproduct of whatever "action" is occurring at the Corona of the Sun. Nuclear or otherwise.

Just because a neutrino is evident in a nuclear reaction created on Earth, does not mean it is impossible to create them otherwise elsewhere. Its the same mind trap that Big G was created around, Or That All Gravity in the universe must be a constant no matter where you are in the Universe. This theory has been flatly disproved time and time again in recent years and is still swept aside and utilized as truth.

All your math surrounding Big G is proven furikake.

Every observable date point available from the Universe points directly to an Electric Universe, not a Big G Universe.

Ares would have the power that lifts him off the Earth at his knees the same that drives the cosmos.

Pure monkey furikake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPl2f5dgm8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

This is leading conjecture, neutrinos can very well also be a byproduct of whatever "action" is occurring at the Corona of the Sun. Nuclear or otherwise.

Just because a neutrino is evident in a nuclear reaction created on Earth, does not mean it is impossible to create them otherwise elsewhere. Its the same mind trap that Big G was created around, Or That All Gravity in the universe must be a constant no matter where you are in the Universe. This theory has been flatly disproved time and time again in recent years and is still swept aside and utilized as truth.

---

If that's the case then Electric Universe needs to account for that. Because throughout human history the only time Neutrino's have been detected has been during a nuclear reaction. Nothing currently known to mankind emits neutrinos outside of a nuclear reaction.

I'm not saying that a Neutrino source outside of a nuclear reaction is impossible, but if E.U. wants to be taken seriously it needs to account for it. You can't just provide a blanket statment that it's "not impossible to create them otherwise" and expect to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

All your math surrounding Big G is proven furikake.



Every observable date point available from the Universe points directly to an Electric Universe, not a Big G Universe.

---

Wrong, on so many levels. Electric Universe doesn't account for Neutrino's, the suns light spectrum, or even planet formation. Which does not match up with observed data.

What do you have vested into this? What is it to you? Observable data is proving you and this theory is complete and utter hogwash.

Quote:

---

Ares would have the power that lifts him off the Earth at his knees the same that drives the cosmos.

Pure monkey furikake

---

We already do, just aren't harnessing it efficiently enough yet.

NEURO: I think we should drop unified theory, it hasn't brought us any closer to any solution. (the old is abandoned)

ARES: if E.U. wants to be taken seriously it needs to account for it, this theory is complete and utter hogwash. (the new is mocked)


CONFIRMATION:
Two examples showing that (astro)physics as we know them are about to crash down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singular_me

CONFIRMATION:
Two examples showing that (astro)physics as we know them are about to crash down

---

:rolleyes:

We already know you'll believe whatever anyone spoon feeds you. You're a contrarian and for whatever reason, whatever the prevailing thought or rational is you have to contradict it. Even if the contradiction is bat shit crazy lunacy, you'll dive in head first.

Want to be taken seriously with Electric Universe? Explain what the source of Neutrino's are if the Sun is not nuclear.

Until then, kindly sit down and shut up and let the adults talk while you live in your fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Wrong, on so many levels. Electric Universe doesn't account for Neutrino's, the suns light spectrum, or even planet formation. Which does not match up with observed data.

What do you have vested into this? What is it to you? Observable data is proving you and this theory is complete and utter hogwash..

---

I really have no idea what you are talking about, mainstream science cannot explain 99% of the Cosmos with Big G and Relativity theories. Nothing adds up to equate the observed data.

Daily observable data, experimental and otherwise proves it incorrect, everything is pointing towards an electrical universe observable and otherwise. I'm not sure you have looked into any of this?

Man's current explanation of the cosmos/universe is patently wrong, not only somewhat unexplained.

Neutrino detection proves 0, and vests 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPl2f5dgm8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Which can be measured, 120 volts here in the U.S. How much electricity to power the sun again?

---

Earth is hit with about 1200W/m2 in radiation from the sun. What's the surface area of a sphere with a 150 Billion meter radius?

Got it; 2.83x10^23 m2, so suns power should be in the ballpark of 3.5x10^26 Watts. Assuming some 100 Billion stars of standard sun size in our standard galaxy and a 100 Billion standard galaxies, you should be able to handle the entire Christmas light show of the universe with a mere 10^48 Watt give or take.

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.c...?itok=iGwulEsM
Not too bright as 7th trump constantly reminds me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Until then, kindly sit down and shut up and let the adults talk while you live in your fantasy.

---

Newton versed into hermetic knowledge and I am living in a fantasy for pointing this out again.... everything is falling apart... everything, are you going to deny that perhaps?

because, I say that the understanding of the universe (mirco and macro) rests on the understanding of the torus, pi and phi, and electricity??? Because I assert that science without its metaphysical component is NOT science ???.


even Telsa contended that sciences will make a huge leap ahead the day it will include the paranormal. And I am the one living in a fantasy?

This forum is under the influence scientism, also part of the problem of the mess we are in on this planet. It was a cake walk for the inquisition to go after holistic thinking. People prefer so much more what they can perceive within their bubble of materialistic experience.

So I am sitting down and watching circular and linear thinking going down.

I never read blavatsky but even she, admitted that electricity and its by product, electro-magnetism, was the Force of God. Time to get serious about defeating the NWO.


to watch while drinking a coffee/tea, sure and I am in a fantasy for posting this vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdCryMAwAI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

I really have no idea what you are talking about, mainstream science cannot explain 99% of the Cosmos with Big G and Relativity theories. Nothing adds up to equate the observed data.

Daily observable data, experimental and otherwise proves it incorrect, everything is pointing towards an electrical universe observable and otherwise. I'm not sure you have looked into any of this?

---

I have, and it doesn't point to an Electric Universe. Outside of a nuclear reaction what is the source of the Neutrino's? We have an observatory in Antarctica buried in the ice there observing Neutrino emissions from the sun. If the sun was electric there would be no Neutrino's.

Nothing points to Electric Universe until an alternative Neutrino source can be identified. Not you or anyone can say "well an alternative source is possible" without identifying it. You'll never satisfy the hard data guys without evidence.

Quote:

---

Man's current explanation of the cosmos/universe is patently wrong, not only somewhat unexplained.

---

And I have said repeatedly that General Relativity does not explain our universe well. Speed of light as we know is not a constant and can be slowed. That doesn't mean Electric Universe explains our universe when it cannot even back up any of it's theories with data. Mainstream science may be wrong, and data is proving it wrong. If the speed of light is not constant and can be slowed then E=mc2 is also wrong. So what is the Electric Universes answer WITH DATA to back it up?

Quote:

---

Neutrino detection proves 0, and vests 0

---

WRONG, Neutrino detection indicates that there is a nuclear reaction taking place. Until you can identify an alternative source and backed up by hard data then E.U. doesn't hold any water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

Earth is hit with about 1200W/m2 in radiation from the sun. What's the surface area of a sphere with a 150 Billion meter radius?

Got it; 2.83x10^23 m2, so suns power should be in the ballpark of 3.5x10^26 Watts. Assuming some 100 Billion stars of standard sun size in our standard galaxy and a 100 Billion standard galaxies, you should be able to handle the entire Christmas light show of the universe with a mere 10^48 Watt give or take.

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.c...?itok=iGwulEsM
Not too bright as 7th trump constantly reminds me...

---

Nice, but I want the input, not the output.

Input, conversion and Output. The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy will prove the input / output correct. But we do not know the input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singular_me

Newton versed into hermetic knowledge and I am living in a fantasy for pointing this out again.... everything is falling apart... everything, are you going to deny that perhaps?

because, I say that the understanding of the universe (mirco and macro) rests on the understanding of the torus, pi and phi, and electricity??? Because I assert that science without its metaphysical component is NOT science ???.


even Telsa contended that sciences will make a huge leap ahead the day it will included the paranormal. And I am the one living in a fantasy?

This forum is under the influence scientism, also part of the problem of the mess we are in on this planet. It was a cake walk for the inquisition to go after holistic thinking. People prefer so much more what they can perceive within their bubble of materialistic experience.

So I am sitting down and watching circular and linear thinking going down.

I never read blavatsky but even she, admitted that electricity and its by product, electro-magnetism, was the Force of God. Time to get serious about defeating the NWO.


to watch while drinking a coffee/tea, sure and I am in a fantasy for posting this vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwdCryMAwAI

---

And the source of the Neutrinos are??


I scanned through looking for the word Neutrino's didn't see it and replied asking for the data that I asked of you previously.

Keep living in your fantasy lady.

Keep quoting Tesla, at least he backed up his findings with data. You've backed up absolutely NOTHING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Nice, but I want the input, not the output.

Input, conversion and Output. The laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy will prove the input / output correct. But we do not know the input.

---

On the 120 V grid it would be in the ballpark of 10^46 Amps. I don't want to consider the size of the fuse...


Sorry j/k ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

On the 120 V grid it would be in the ballpark of 10^46 Amps. I don't want to consider the size of the fuse...


Sorry j/k ;D

---

Smartass!!!! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

I have, and it doesn't point to an Electric Universe. Outside of a nuclear reaction what is the source of the Neutrino's? We have an observatory in Antarctica buried in the ice there observing Neutrino emissions from the sun. If the sun was electric there would be no Neutrino's.

Nothing points to Electric Universe until an alternative Neutrino source can be identified. Not you or anyone can say "well an alternative source is possible" without identifying it. You'll never satisfy the hard data guys without evidence.



And I have said repeatedly that General Relativity does not explain our universe well. Speed of light as we know is not a constant and can be slowed. That doesn't mean Electric Universe explains our universe when it cannot even back up any of it's theories with data. Mainstream science may be wrong, and data is proving it wrong. If the speed of light is not constant and can be slowed then E=mc2 is also wrong. So what is the Electric Universes answer WITH DATA to back it up?



WRONG, Neutrino detection indicates that there is a nuclear reaction taking place. Until you can identify an alternative source and backed up by hard data then E.U. doesn't hold any water.

---

Back to the drawing board. Magnetic fields is the essence that draws cosmic plasma to the center of the galaxy where stars are formed each of them in essence a magnetic field, then fusion creates the electricity, and the neutrino's, and the magnetic fields. We all agree that gravity on its own can't keep the universe or even the Milky Way together, and instead of introducing occult matter into the equation let's keep it real. Black holes is a theoretical impossibility someone smarter than me calculated, besides why would they sit in the center of the galaxy and eat the freshest baby stars of the galaxy, doesn't make sense. Indeed if true I doubt we would exist out in one of the relaxing lowradiation suburbian arms of the milky way as a 4th generation recycled star, with plentyful heavy metal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

Back to the drawing board. Magnetic fields is the essence that draws cosmic plasma to the center of the galaxy where stars are formed each of them in essence a magnetic field, then fusion creates the electricity, and the neutrino's, and the magnetic fields. We all agree that gravity on its own can't keep the universe or even the Milky Way together, and instead of introducing occult matter into the equation let's keep it real. Black holes is a theoretical impossibility someone smarter than me calculated, besides why would they sit in the center of the galaxy and eat the freshest baby stars of the galaxy, doesn't make sense. Indeed if true I doubt we would exist out in one of the relaxing lowradiation suburbian arms of the milky way as a 4th generation recycled star, with plentyful heavy metal!

---

Laura Mersini-Houghton is the author of the paper that proves Blackholes do not exist. She also backed up her findings with data. :)

In case anyone is interested, here is her Research paper with the data: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v2.pdf

Researching further William Unruh is disputing her findings:

According to Unruh, black holes don’t emit enough Hawking radiation to shrink the mass of the black hole down to where Mersini-Houghton claims in a timely manner. Instead, “it would take 10^53 (1 followed by 53 zeros) times the age of the universe to evaporate,” he explains.

“The standard behaviour by such people [who don’t understand Hawking radiation] is to project that outgoing energy back closer and closer to the horizon of the black hole, where its energy density gets larger and larger,” he continued. “Unfortunately explicit calculations of the energy density near the horizon show it is really, really small instead of being large-- Those calculations were already done in the 1970s. To call bad speculation "has been proven mathematically" is, shall we say, and overstatement.”

It ain't gravity and fusion or electromagnetism and electric charge it is both. And you can exclude occult matter and force from your equations...

http://aias.us/documents/miscellaneo...popular-en.pdf
Page 25-26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Laura Mersini-Houghton is the author of the paper that proves Blackholes do not exist. She also backed up her findings with data. :)

In case anyone is interested, here is her Research paper with the data: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v2.pdf

---

Anti-singular-me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

It ain't gravity and fusion or electromagnetism and electric charge it is both. And you can exclude occult matter and force from your equations...

http://aias.us/documents/miscellaneo...popular-en.pdf
Page 25-26

---

There goes another theory that doesn't add up when the math is calculated.

Several of Evans' central claims were later shown to be mathematically incorrect and, in 2008, the editor of Foundations of Physics published an editorial note effectively retracting the journal's support for the hypothesis.

Research paper disputing ECE Theory:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186v4.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

There goes another theory that doesn't add up when the math is calculated.

Several of Evans' central claims were later shown to be mathematically incorrect and, in 2008, the editor of Foundations of Physics published an editorial note effectively retracting the journal's support for the hypothesis.

Research paper disputing ECE Theory:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186v4.pdf

---

I can't say I understand the math... Anyhow my intention wasn't to promote his particular theory, but to show the graph relating to spiral galaxy and star speed in relation to distance from center, which would reject a completely Newtonian explanation... You need to add dark matter and energy to tweak it to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

I can't say I understand the math...

---

Evans [2] ignored that
ω
and
κ
are
not
Lorentz-invariant. Under
longitudinal
Lorentz transforms, we have the well-known Doppler effect:
3

Therefore the invariance of the vector potentials
does not transfer
to the
transverse components
B
(1)
and
B
(2)
.

Basically Evans screwed up the calculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

I can't say I understand the math... Anyhow my intention wasn't to promote his particular theory, but to show the graph relating to spiral galaxy and star speed in relation to distance from center, which would reject a completely Newtonian explanation... You need to add dark matter and energy to tweak it to reality.

---

Agreed, Newtonian physics and General Relatively have a hard time explaining gravity outside of our own planet. Once you ratchet up the scale you start having to compensate for variations which are not explained by either.

I'm a hard data guy, I look at data day in and day out. Data NEVER lies, however data can be misinterpreted. :) Which is why it is helpful to have as many eyes on the data as possible to see if the same conclusion is reached. If not then help run through the data to show a different outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ares

Evans [2] ignored that
ω
and
κ
are
not
Lorentz-invariant. Under
longitudinal
Lorentz transforms, we have the well-known Doppler effect:
3

Therefore the invariance of the vector potentials
does not transfer
to the
transverse components
B
(1)
and
B
(2)
.

Basically Evans screwed up the calculations.

---

Thanks for clarifying to me that I don't understand the math! ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neuro

Thanks for clarifying to me that I don't understand the math! ;D

---

Yeah the formatting is horrible, sorry. :(

Copy and paste doesn't work well when you start adding equations into the mix. The explanation is on page 3, and his paper ends with Evans relenting and admitting that the outcome is not as expected once the data is calculated correctly.