The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:38 am

Rossim wrote:
Well we're making some progress. I'm sure you're familiar with Occam's Razor, from Wikipedia: "among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Negative mass... big assumption. Dark matter, which is not "missing matter", does not absorb or emit light and doesn't interact chemically with normal matter, only gravitationally exactly as needed... big assumption.


Well if you have a good theory that describes the universe without those "big assumptions" and makes quantitative predictions also that can be tested for, I will applaud for that!


I can't comment on quantitative predictions vs qualitative predictions but when comet Hyakutake began emitting x-rays, it was a prediction of EU theorists that baffled mainstream scientists. You want that in quantitative format? Prediction of EU: anything >1 eV X-ray emission. Mainstream prediction: comets are dirty snow balls slowly melting, no x-rays can be produced... duh.


Do you have a link to a scientific study about that comet? Please post it here.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Thu Jul 03, 2014 1:41 am

saul wrote:Interesting, thanks. We definitely need to think outside the box to explain galaxies because nothing seems to work in here :)

One thing you might be interested to note is that we know nothing about the active or passive gravitational properties of antimatter. We don't even know if antimatter falls towards the earth. So there is definitely some room here for similar lines of thought to your "negative mass". There is a french team that is working in explaining galactic rotation with antimatter which made it on the cover of science et vie.

Cheers - saul


That is why it is being tested. But if anti-matter were also anti-gravitational, while the inertial mass would be still positive, it would break GR which assumes that inertial mass=gravitational mass.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:49 am

@ Frantic; robheus, All,

Regarding charges and neutrality of particles, nothing is neutral since all atoms can be activated, all depending of the electromagnetic charge and polarity.

When thinking of the formational processes, plasma dynamics (Thermodynamics) also shall be considered, and again if thinking of the huge electromagnetic gammarays radiating out from galaxies there´s plenty of charge and strength of energies enough to move all objects in a galaxy in a magnetic field.

If estimating the whole mass of our galaxy and the motion of the objects, one can transfer the result over to the strength of the electromagnetic powers and qualities.

Again, if taking the galactic strength of electromagnetism in the galactic center, I think ALL the so called “fundamental forces” works as 1 here because the centers of galaxies represents the very basics of formation et all.

I have no solid poofs of this, but this phenomenon is mentioned in the BB ideas as well in descriptions of physics of electromagnetics.

If so, all atoms in a galactic center can be activated in all kinds of ways, and all forms as minigalaxies; globular clusters; star systems; stars; planets and their moons can formatted and thus rotational and orbital set in motion, again all depending of the actual existence of gases and particles in an actual formation process.

Regarding the motions in a spherical electromagnetic field, of course both and inwards and an outwards going motion takes place thus confirming a contractive force (towards the center) and an expulsive force (away from the center) a circuit of motion which of course not are 2 forces but 1 as mentioned above.

These explanations of course removes all needs of "dark this or that" all over the place. There´s no need at all to even discuss such strange and imaginative black ghosts.


Edit: These explanations puts the light on both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of "gravity" and especially on their ideas of "circular and elliptical celestial motions around a center, including rotations of a celestial body". Electrodynamics and thermodynamics is what unites all ideas.

# 2 Edit: These explanations really could be launced as a "New Cosmological Model" - but in fact this perception is old as humanity itself.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Morphix » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:13 am

robheus wrote:
Morphix wrote:Hi Robheus. So far as the dark matter hypothesis goes, it has been falsified by well known physicists, most recently by Kroupa, Pawlowski and assocates. Please take a look at the "Dark Matter Crisis: rise and fall of cosmological hypotheses" thread from a few weeks back for links to their relevant papers and presentations. I look forward to your further thoughts after reviewing this material.


Can you provide a link to that subject?


Here you go: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15078
Morphix
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:39 am

@Morphix,
Thanks for your linking - would it be Ok for me to link back to this page in your link?
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby nick c » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:50 am

robheus wrote:But we hold it that at large enough scales, matter is electrically neutral, so at large enough scales, electro-magnetism would neutralize I guess. So that is why cosmology takes it that gravity dominates the universe.
Is this not the crux of the problem?
I think that is true
Translation: I "ASSUME" that it is true.
Mainstream assumes gravity to be the significant force in the cosmos. The EU challenges this assumption. Matter is not automatically electrically neutral, it is acknowledged by mainstream that 99% of the universe is plasma. Free electrons, protons, and ionized atoms are quite the norm. Whether or not there is an overall equivalence of electrons and protons does not imply that the behavior of plasmas can be discounted. By assuming that the plasmas are ideal gases and stay that way as they gravitationally collapse is not a realistic

assumption. Plasmas do not behave as ideal gases. Gravitational collapse is limited by electrostatic repulsion which is 1039 times more powerful. That is why the EU disputes Black Holes, neutron stars, and fusion reactors at the center of stars.

The need for dark matter in standard cosmology illustrates the failure of the gravity only assumption. Galactic rotation and the motion and interaction between galaxies and groups of galaxies just simply does not obey the "laws" of gravity.

Pointing out the regularity and apparent confirmation of Newtonian mechanics as shown by the operation of the solar system needs to be considered with an important caveat.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Morphix » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:43 pm

Native wrote:@Morphix,
Thanks for your linking - would it be Ok for me to link back to this page in your link?

Absolutely, it's already connected in spirit!
Morphix
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Frantic » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:24 pm

robheus wrote:The only point is that there are several different hypothesis that can be tested to solve the problem. EU/PC is one of them, but others are also on the table.

Further, as far as I know, EU/PC makes only qualitative predictions, not quantitative predictions. We need actual quantative predictions to see if the theory matches observations. Else we don't have a theory, only some good idea.

I think the biggest problem with science is an assumption of arrogance. I.E. If I know every parameter and initial condition I can turn an input into an output and if this holds true most of the time I have a law. We cannot predict weather beyond 1 week time range! We know by history what is likely, but there are no quantitative predictions at all, only qualitative. Yet that is here on our own earth, why a higher standard for the cosmos? Whether and the cosmos we see are the same thing, we are trying to understand the weather of the universe when we cannot explain our own earth, nor our solar system. It is all just whether. If I drop a small piece of paper I have no idea where it will land, maybe a range of distances on average. Perhaps in closed designed systems laws can be quite simple, experiments and technology revolve around creating a framework for their laws to operate within, it never utilizes natural structures. There are no natural laws, just understanding and application. Every equation of the cosmos assumes we can treat everything as a point source. At some moment every equation invoking gravity simplifies matter to a point source. This is because an equation can never be made. I know that many will argue with that, but I do not see any proof that any scientific equation holds up in our own, let alone outside of our solar system. We don't know anything that quantitatively, but we have made good application of one man's understanding. Open your eyes and step away from the formulas and simulations for a little bit.

Native wrote:@Morphix,
Thanks for your linking - would it be Ok for me to link back to this page in your link?

I think I can imagine the expression that was on your face when you were linked there :lol: can you see me laughing?
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:02 am

nick c wrote:
robheus wrote:But we hold it that at large enough scales, matter is electrically neutral, so at large enough scales, electro-magnetism would neutralize I guess. So that is why cosmology takes it that gravity dominates the universe.
Is this not the crux of the problem?
I think that is true
Translation: I "ASSUME" that it is true.
Mainstream assumes gravity to be the significant force in the cosmos. The EU challenges this assumption. Matter is not automatically electrically neutral, it is acknowledged by mainstream that 99% of the universe is plasma. Free electrons, protons, and ionized atoms are quite the norm. Whether or not there is an overall equivalence of electrons and protons does not imply that the behavior of plasmas can be discounted. By assuming that the plasmas are ideal gases and stay that way as they gravitationally collapse is not a realistic

assumption. Plasmas do not behave as ideal gases. Gravitational collapse is limited by electrostatic repulsion which is 1039 times more powerful. That is why the EU disputes Black Holes, neutron stars, and fusion reactors at the center of stars.

The need for dark matter in standard cosmology illustrates the failure of the gravity only assumption. Galactic rotation and the motion and interaction between galaxies and groups of galaxies just simply does not obey the "laws" of gravity.

Pointing out the regularity and apparent confirmation of Newtonian mechanics as shown by the operation of the solar system needs to be considered with an important caveat.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/


It doesn't matter what the percentage of plasma is, the point I made was that the plasma on averga and on large enough scales, is electrically neutral. For the whole universe, the amount of negative charge equals the amount of positve charge.

See, that is different then gravity, because gravity is only positive (at least that is the standard idea, which might be wrong), so at large enough scales only gravity dominates.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:40 am

Hello all

This topic leads off to another topic below.

The setup topic of

THE "NATURAL STANDARD MODEL" - "NSM"

Can be read here.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15127
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Rossim » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:43 am

robheus wrote:
nick c wrote:
robheus wrote:But we hold it that at large enough scales, matter is electrically neutral, so at large enough scales, electro-magnetism would neutralize I guess. So that is why cosmology takes it that gravity dominates the universe.
Is this not the crux of the problem?
I think that is true
Translation: I "ASSUME" that it is true.
Mainstream assumes gravity to be the significant force in the cosmos. The EU challenges this assumption. Matter is not automatically electrically neutral, it is acknowledged by mainstream that 99% of the universe is plasma. Free electrons, protons, and ionized atoms are quite the norm. Whether or not there is an overall equivalence of electrons and protons does not imply that the behavior of plasmas can be discounted. By assuming that the plasmas are ideal gases and stay that way as they gravitationally collapse is not a realistic

assumption. Plasmas do not behave as ideal gases. Gravitational collapse is limited by electrostatic repulsion which is 1039 times more powerful. That is why the EU disputes Black Holes, neutron stars, and fusion reactors at the center of stars.

The need for dark matter in standard cosmology illustrates the failure of the gravity only assumption. Galactic rotation and the motion and interaction between galaxies and groups of galaxies just simply does not obey the "laws" of gravity.

Pointing out the regularity and apparent confirmation of Newtonian mechanics as shown by the operation of the solar system needs to be considered with an important caveat.
see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/


It doesn't matter what the percentage of plasma is, the point I made was that the plasma on averga and on large enough scales, is electrically neutral. For the whole universe, the amount of negative charge equals the amount of positve charge.

See, that is different then gravity, because gravity is only positive (at least that is the standard idea, which might be wrong), so at large enough scales only gravity dominates.


I'm beginning to think that no matter what knowledge is brought to your attention, you're going to stick with your views out of pure arrogance. This imaginary "the universe is neutral" principle you keep inviting has been discussed on several occasions in this thread alone. If "neutral" plasma is heated any amount, the electrons will move faster than protons, separating charge and creating electric fields. Period. Your statement has zero value in the real world.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:13 pm

Native wrote:'m beginning to think that no matter what knowledge is brought to your attention, you're going to stick with your views out of pure arrogance. This imaginary "the universe is neutral" principle you keep inviting has been discussed on several occasions in this thread alone. If "neutral" plasma is heated any amount, the electrons will move faster than protons, separating charge and creating electric fields. Period. Your statement has zero value in the real world.


A personal summary why Big Bang is invalid and can/should not be used for any explanations:

1) Cosmic Background Radiation comes from water and many other point-sources
(observations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI )
2) Redshift does not mean inflation, but is related to sparse hot plasma
(observations by Halton Arp and such show that high redshift does not mean far away).
3) General relativity is wrong. So the theoretical basis for the big bang is invalid
(observations: No bending of light, no change in frequency)
--These 3 points already mean: all pillars of big bang are invalid.

4) There are near and young quasars, that means that quasars were not the born by the big bang
5) Stars near the center of galaxies are younger than the ones on the edge. That means the order in which these stars are created is not in the order that one might expect from the big bang.
6) The big-bang theory is full with theoretical and practical contradictions.
7) Things in the universe are far too old.

Other issues:
8) The big bang is related to the religious idea that "something" created the universe from nothing.
Most scientists were religious when the big bang was invented, so this matched their believes.
9) Many modern scientists hang on to the idea that we know all the "laws" of nature.
10) That we can use reductionism to understand something that is bigger than what we know and out of range of our observations.

And many other problems..

There is also nice websites with many different points:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

And don't forget:
http://www.thunderbolts.info

And all sites listed on the right on:
http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology

We really should have a big bang forum where we can do big bang bashing.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:51 pm

robheus wrote:It doesn't matter what the percentage of plasma is, the point I made was that the plasma on averga and on large enough scales, is electrically neutral. For the whole universe, the amount of negative charge equals the amount of positve charge.

See, that is different then gravity, because gravity is only positive (at least that is the standard idea, which might be wrong), so at large enough scales only gravity dominates.

Assuming that because there are the same number of electrons and protons in a plasma that it's overall neutrality negates electrical forces is in serious error. By your statement we would think that the solar wind (which is a plasma that is believed to be overall neutral) would never be able to escape the gravitational attraction of the Sun, and furthermore it continues to accelerate as it leaves the Sun!

If gravity dominates "at large enough scales" then why do you need to invent dark matter?

See:
We've heard that space plasma is "neutral." Doesn't that mean it can't conduct currents?

A typical plasma has approximately equal numbers of positive and negative charges and those charges are likewise free to move, thus it is quasi-neutral and does conduct.
The outer layer(s) of the sun are composed largely of plasma. Interplanetary space is filled with low-density plasma. Interstellar and intergalactic space is filled with extremely low-density plasma. In fact, up to 99.999% of the visible universe is composed of matter in the plasma state.

To argue that the quasi-neutrality of space plasma precludes that plasma from conducting currents would be erroneous. In light of this revelation, we suggest that astronomers and astrophysicists should be re-evaluate many current quandaries and prior assumptions in light of over a century of low-density plasma discharge experiments by such pioneering individuals as Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir and Hannes Alfvén (among others).
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2475
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:39 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Native wrote:'m beginning to think that no matter what knowledge is brought to your attention, you're going to stick with your views out of pure arrogance. This imaginary "the universe is neutral" principle you keep inviting has been discussed on several occasions in this thread alone. If "neutral" plasma is heated any amount, the electrons will move faster than protons, separating charge and creating electric fields. Period. Your statement has zero value in the real world.


A personal summary why Big Bang is invalid and can/should not be used for any explanations:

1) Cosmic Background Radiation comes from water and many other point-sources
(observations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI )
2) Redshift does not mean inflation, but is related to sparse hot plasma
(observations by Halton Arp and such show that high redshift does not mean far away).
3) General relativity is wrong. So the theoretical basis for the big bang is invalid
(observations: No bending of light, no change in frequency)
--These 3 points already mean: all pillars of big bang are invalid.

4) There are near and young quasars, that means that quasars were not the born by the big bang
5) Stars near the center of galaxies are younger than the ones on the edge. That means the order in which these stars are created is not in the order that one might expect from the big bang.
6) The big-bang theory is full with theoretical and practical contradictions.
7) Things in the universe are far too old.

Other issues:
8) The big bang is related to the religious idea that "something" created the universe from nothing.
Most scientists were religious when the big bang was invented, so this matched their believes.
9) Many modern scientists hang on to the idea that we know all the "laws" of nature.
10) That we can use reductionism to understand something that is bigger than what we know and out of range of our observations.

And many other problems..

There is also nice websites with many different points:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/

And don't forget:
http://www.thunderbolts.info

And all sites listed on the right on:
http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology

We really should have a big bang forum where we can do big bang bashing.


As to your points:
1) Can be that there are other sources for the CMBR spectrum then the "surface of last scattering", but how is it proven that the earth's ocean are the source for the CMBR? Anyway, any such disputes can be resolved when we have better instruments (for instance: on the backside of the moon: no disturbance from earth's oceans!).

2) Redshift is not inflation. Redshift is related to expansion of space (cosmological redshift), which fit the models of solutions to Einstein's equations. (Friedmann-Robertson-Walkman or short FRW solutuions). A non-expanding universe is not a stable solution to those equations.
Halton Arp's solution is: a) There is no expansion of space, and b) redshift is not cosmological but based on alternative solutions to Einstein's equations, in which mass itself has a time evolution! So, going back in time means in Halton Arp's model that all mass becomes effectively zero!
Anyway from that point of view we are no better off, since in that case the universe would have started with zero-mass (instead of 'zero time'). Hardly any better or more satisfying if you ask me.

3) During any solar-eclipse we can see stars that are close to the sun, and we KNOW their normal position very precisely, and can MEASURE the discrepancy in their position due to the GR effect of bending of light by the sun. The results EXACTLY match GR!

4) The BB theory does not state that.

5) That has also nothing to do with the Big Bang!

6) Which contradictions exactly? Only thing I know is that the BB theory postulates that around 95% of matter is in some unknown form (Dark Energy + Dark Matter). This is not a contradiction, but something not observed.

7) What objects in the universe are older then 13.7 billion years?
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:42 pm

nick c wrote:
robheus wrote:It doesn't matter what the percentage of plasma is, the point I made was that the plasma on averga and on large enough scales, is electrically neutral. For the whole universe, the amount of negative charge equals the amount of positve charge.

See, that is different then gravity, because gravity is only positive (at least that is the standard idea, which might be wrong), so at large enough scales only gravity dominates.

Assuming that because there are the same number of electrons and protons in a plasma that it's overall neutrality negates electrical forces is in serious error. By your statement we would think that the solar wind (which is a plasma that is believed to be overall neutral) would never be able to escape the gravitational attraction of the Sun, and furthermore it continues to accelerate as it leaves the Sun!

If gravity dominates "at large enough scales" then why do you need to invent dark matter?

See:
We've heard that space plasma is "neutral." Doesn't that mean it can't conduct currents?

A typical plasma has approximately equal numbers of positive and negative charges and those charges are likewise free to move, thus it is quasi-neutral and does conduct.
The outer layer(s) of the sun are composed largely of plasma. Interplanetary space is filled with low-density plasma. Interstellar and intergalactic space is filled with extremely low-density plasma. In fact, up to 99.999% of the visible universe is composed of matter in the plasma state.

To argue that the quasi-neutrality of space plasma precludes that plasma from conducting currents would be erroneous. In light of this revelation, we suggest that astronomers and astrophysicists should be re-evaluate many current quandaries and prior assumptions in light of over a century of low-density plasma discharge experiments by such pioneering individuals as Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir and Hannes Alfvén (among others).


If a (large) objects is on average neutral, it doesn't mean there are no currents!

We have also here on earth an on average 'neutral' air pressure, but that doesn't mean there are no winds!

On "large enough scales" would mean for example that a supercluster has no electrical influence on others suchs clusters, only at smaller scales such influences exist. That is, as far as I can tell. Anyway the electrical influences on large enough scales almost neutralize, while gravity (even if it is much weaker) dominates.

That is why cosmologists work dominantly with gravity. Of course on more local scales, we know that electric influences are there, can be measured and modelled, and there are enough phenoma that can have something to do with those electrical influences.


And of course the sun is able to propell large amounts of electrically charged particles into the solar system, the influence of the sun reaches far out into space, not far from where Voyager 1 and 2 are now.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests