Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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!
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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.”
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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!
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Neuro
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
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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.
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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.
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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.
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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
Re: Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?
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.
