Is MOND theory another denial mechanism for the mainstream?

[Justatruthseeker]

It is good to see Higgsy (and LaSuisse1, in Planetary Science forum) here asking questions.

It reminds of how we were once,
and how it is for others, when they first encounter the EU concepts.
How much trust we had in the mainstream sciences, before our eyes were opened.

Seems to me there are two ways Higgsy can go from here.
If his faith in mainstream is unshakable, he will judge us here to be deceived, and will go his merry way when he tires of questioning us,
or he goes on the wonderful journey of discovery and revelation we who are trying answer his questions all went on.
Are still on.

EU theory is a 2x revelatory journey.
One revelation is learning all the alternate theories that do exist, which we are continuously told do not exist.
The second revelation is learning how much mainstream science is fudged, and how much the fudges are worshiped.

The rare times when EU theory is mentioned by the mainstream, it is only to disapprove it, deny it, and to call the advocates crackpots.
So it is hidden from us.
To know what is going on, in EU and mainstream, one has to actively seek it out, and read.
And talk to those who already have.

And you find that EU people are open minded, friendly, and willing to help.
Look how many tried to help Higgsy with his questions.


~Paul

It's an eye opening journey, one that once started one can never go back. It is this I think that stops many from questioning what they are told to believe. Right now they feel safe and warm, as mainstream claims to have all the answers. But once you really start to dig you realize just how much those answers contradict each other and rely on almost 98% unproven science. Hate using that word when it comes to mainstream theories as it's all Fairie Dust.

But I hope they continue to dig, but sadly I find most have had too many years of Fairie Dust ingrained upon them. When you question mainstream theory you are not challenging a science, but a set of beliefs. And beliefs are the hardest thing to change of all.

[Michael Mozina]

It is good to see Higgsy (and LaSuisse1, in Planetary Science forum) here asking questions.

It reminds of how we were once,
and how it is for others, when they first encounter the EU concepts.
How much trust we had in the mainstream sciences, before our eyes were opened.

Seems to me there are two ways Higgsy can go from here.
If his faith in mainstream is unshakable, he will judge us here to be deceived, and will go his merry way when he tires of questioning us,
or he goes on the wonderful journey of discovery and revelation we who are trying answer his questions all went on.
Are still on.

EU theory is a 2x revelatory journey.
One revelation is learning all the alternate theories that do exist, which we are continuously told do not exist.
The second revelation is learning how much mainstream science is fudged, and how much the fudges are worshiped.

The rare times when EU theory is mentioned by the mainstream, it is only to disapprove it, deny it, and to call the advocates crackpots.
So it is hidden from us.
To know what is going on, in EU and mainstream, one has to actively seek it out, and read.
And talk to those who already have.

And you find that EU people are open minded, friendly, and willing to help.
Look how many tried to help Higgsy with his questions.


~Paul

It's an eye opening journey, one that once started one can never go back. It is this I think that stops many from questioning what they are told to believe. Right now they feel safe and warm, as mainstream claims to have all the answers. But once you really start to dig you realize just how much those answers contradict each other and rely on almost 98% unproven science. Hate using that word when it comes to mainstream theories as it's all Fairie Dust.

But I hope they continue to dig, but sadly I find most have had too many years of Fairie Dust ingrained upon them. When you question mainstream theory you are not challenging a science, but a set of beliefs. And beliefs are the hardest thing to change of all.

I agree with you that it's wonderful to question our own beliefs. I also agree that once one loses their faith in LCDM, there's really no going backwards to the supernatural ever again. The moment that I began to lose my faith in supernatural constructs in cosmology, I couldn't help but see the electrical activity of the universe staring me in the face. It was certainly an eye opening experience, and well worth the journey, and it all began by the questioning of my previous beliefs.

[sketch1946]

My understanding so far is that there are at least about three levels of confusion generally,
the first is getting a grip on the fact that there is an electric field equivalent to a magnetic field,
(the following link is very well written, and is a must read for anyone trying to understand
electric fields:

" Of several electricity concepts, the idea of "voltage" or "electrical potential" is probably the hardest to understand.It's also really tough to explain. It's a headache for both the student and the teacher.....To understand voltage, it helps if you first understand a little about its nearest relative, magnetism. "

"WHAT IS VOLTAGE?"
1998 William J. Beaty
http://amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html

and the second is how an electric field can create an acceleration of charged ions and electrons which constitutes a current, and creates a local magnetic field,
and third necessary understanding is that plasma is a state of matter different than a gas, plasma is a medium in which currents can flow, with -electrons and +ions behaving differently...

... there's more... plasma is very complicated!

I'm still getting my head around the geometry of Flux Tubes/Birkeland Currents/Debye Sheaths
http://www.aeronomie.be/en/topics/solar ... nfield.pdf

[Justatruthseeker]

My understanding so far is that there are at least about three levels of confusion generally,
the first is getting a grip on the fact that there is an electric field equivalent to a magnetic field,
(the following link is very well written, and is a must read for anyone trying to understand
electric fields:

" Of several electricity concepts, the idea of "voltage" or "electrical potential" is probably the hardest to understand.It's also really tough to explain. It's a headache for both the student and the teacher.....To understand voltage, it helps if you first understand a little about its nearest relative, magnetism. "

"WHAT IS VOLTAGE?"
1998 William J. Beaty
http://amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html

and the second is how an electric field can create an acceleration of charged ions and electrons which constitutes a current, and creates a local magnetic field,
and third necessary understanding is that plasma is a state of matter different than a gas, plasma is a medium in which currents can flow, with -electrons and +ions behaving differently...

... there's more... plasma is very complicated!

I'm still getting my head around the geometry of Flux Tubes/Birkeland Currents/Debye Sheaths
http://www.aeronomie.be/en/topics/solar ... nfield.pdf

That's one of my favorite sites for helping people to understand electricity. Basically because their is no single thing that is electricity, but several things all wrapped up together in one word.

Actually I think the hardest thing to get people to understand is that there are no magnetic fields without an electric current. If most could just grasp this simple well established fact they would have half the hurdle completed when it penetrated that everywhere in space that a magnetic field exists, their exists also an electric current. But sadly when mainstream discusses electromagnetism, they bypass the electro and only speak of the magnetism part. Most in mainstream simply can't or won't accept the fact that a magnetic field can't exist without an electric current. Even when you show them the scientific explanation of magnetic fields, it's like they read it but are unable to retain the words. Mainstream has done an excellent job of brainwashing their subjects.

[comingfrom]

Ugh! and Ugh!

Thanks Sketch,
but both those links are shocking. Explain nothing about what electricity is.
They are physics without physical explanations.

The first one lets you know the E field exists in the intro, then jumps straight to Math.
No physical explanation of what the E-field actually is, without which the math can only be heuristic.

The second link tells us the solar wind is "exactly like" a garden sprinkler, and "the solar wind originates from one point in the solar atmosphere" to form the Parker spiral.

They didn't even spend much time thinking about that, before writing it.
And again, there is no physical explanation of how the E-field is working mechanically.
The Sun is NOT simply throwing electrons and protons with it's angular momentum though a single pin hole in it's atmosphere, like a sprinkler throws water.

~`
A brief mechanical explanation of the electric field.
(As I currently understand it.)

Photons are the mediating particles.
Charge is photons, and charge is everywhere.
Photons are approximately 10^-11 smaller than the hydrogen atom.
The E field is created by their linear motion and the B (magnetic) field is create by the sum of their angular momentum.

If all the photons are spinning the same way, they create a strong magnetic component in the field.
If half of them are spinning left and half are spinning right, the sum of their angular momentum is 0, and there is no magnetic component in the field.
A 60/40 mix will give a slight magnetic field.

Electrons and Protons recycle photons.
So when you think of your electrons in the E field, remember they are spinning and drawing in photons at the south pole while doing so, and their spin sprays the photons (charge) out their equators, just like the Sun does.
If the photons they are recycling are all spinning the same way, the electron is driven sideways by the spins, as well forwards by their linear motion.

All the atoms in the Sun are recycling photons, and the photons are being emitted, which photons also drive the particles in what we call the solar wind.
The planets have many less atoms, so their E fields are much less than the Sun's.

Questions welcomed.

... there's more... plasma is very complicated!

Because each particle has it own charge (recycled from the ambient field), each has own E and B fields and are interacting with each other, as well as with any general photon field they might be in.

I looked for a physical explanation (after all, this is physics ).
This is the best I have come across so far.

What is Charge?
Electrical Charge.
by Mile Mathis.

Electric best wishes
~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

What's a magnetic field? What's gravity? What's an electric field?

The three biggest mysteries in science today. But that's why we believe in laboratory research and not just adding Fairie Dust to make the numbers add up.

[Justatruthseeker]

Ugh! and Ugh!

Thanks Sketch,
but both those links are shocking. Explain nothing about what electricity is.
They are physics without physical explanations.

The first one lets you know the E field exists in the intro, then jumps straight to Math.
No physical explanation of what the E-field actually is, without which the math can only be heuristic.

The second link tells us the solar wind is "exactly like" a garden sprinkler, and "the solar wind originates from one point in the solar atmosphere" to form the Parker spiral.

They didn't even spend much time thinking about that, before writing it.
And again, there is no physical explanation of how the E-field is working mechanically.
The Sun is NOT simply throwing electrons and protons with it's angular momentum though a single pin hole in it's atmosphere, like a sprinkler throws water.

~`
A brief mechanical explanation of the electric field.
(As I currently understand it.)

Photons are the mediating particles.
Charge is photons, and charge is everywhere.
Photons are approximately 10^-11 smaller than the hydrogen atom.
The E field is created by their linear motion and the B (magnetic) field is create by the sum of their angular momentum.

If all the photons are spinning the same way, they create a strong magnetic component in the field.
If half of them are spinning left and half are spinning right, the sum of their angular momentum is 0, and there is no magnetic component in the field.
A 60/40 mix will give a slight magnetic field.

Electrons and Protons recycle photons.
So when you think of your electrons in the E field, remember they are spinning and drawing in photons at the south pole while doing so, and their spin sprays the photons (charge) out their equators, just like the Sun does.
If the photons they are recycling are all spinning the same way, the electron is driven sideways by the spins, as well forwards by their linear motion.

All the atoms in the Sun are recycling photons, and the photons are being emitted, which photons also drive the particles in what we call the solar wind.
The planets have many less atoms, so their E fields are much less than the Sun's.

Questions welcomed.

... there's more... plasma is very complicated!

Because each particle has it own charge (recycled from the ambient field), each has own E and B fields and are interacting with each other, as well as with any general photon field they might be in.

I looked for a physical explanation (after all, this is physics ).
This is the best I have come across so far.

What is Charge?
Electrical Charge.
by Mile Mathis.

Electric best wishes
~Paul

And displacement current fits in where since there are no charge carriers involved, yet current flows regardless.

if, as in a wire movable charges such as electrons exist, they will be moved by the current. But as displacement current shows even if they don't exist, the current still flows.

Personally I don't believe the movement of charged particles is current. I believe if moveable charges exist, they will move when the current flows, and it is this we have mistaken as the cause of current, when it is a mere byproduct.

We have three big unknowns in science. Electric fields, magnetic fields and gravitational fields. I think gravity is nothing but the voltage differences between non ionized matter, which doesn't react strongly in EM fields as does ionized matter. I think oil drop experiments tell us much more than the charge on an electron. When voltage is applied (added to what already exists, those electrons slow, stop and begin to rise, despite having more charge and therefore should have more mass and more gravitational attraction.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Justatruthseeker.

And displacement current fits in where since there are no charge carriers involved, yet current flows regardless.

Photons are the charge carriers.

if, as in a wire movable charges such as electrons exist, they will be moved by the current. But as displacement current shows even if they don't exist, the current still flows.

Our wire is generally made of copper, because it a lattice structure element that conducts charge well. When charge is flowing through, the electrons get knocked along from atom to atom.

Personally I don't believe the movement of charged particles is current. I believe if moveable charges exist, they will move when the current flows, and it is this we have mistaken as the cause of current, when it is a mere byproduct.

What is current, but movement or flow.

We can detect electrons and ions, and that is how we measure electricity.
But if there were no electrons or ions in the flow, we have no way to measure the current.

~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you, Justatruthseeker.

And displacement current fits in where since there are no charge carriers involved, yet current flows regardless.

Photons are the charge carriers.

if, as in a wire movable charges such as electrons exist, they will be moved by the current. But as displacement current shows even if they don't exist, the current still flows.

Our wire is generally made of copper, because it a lattice structure element that conducts charge well. When charge is flowing through, the electrons get knocked along from atom to atom.

Personally I don't believe the movement of charged particles is current. I believe if moveable charges exist, they will move when the current flows, and it is this we have mistaken as the cause of current, when it is a mere byproduct.

What is current, but movement or flow.

We can detect electrons and ions, and that is how we measure electricity.
But if there were no electrons or ions in the flow, we have no way to measure the current.

~Paul

I don't believe in photons as particles. I don't believe a particle hits that rock is absorbed and then emitted and conveys details such as color, texture, etc to your eyes. They would have to be the silly putty of the universe.

[comingfrom]

Thank you Justatruthseeker,

I don't believe in photons as particles. I don't believe a particle hits that rock is absorbed and then emitted and conveys details such as color, texture, etc to your eyes.

I can't see what else they could be.
The fact that they can be absorbed and remitted by a rock's atoms and then hit the receptors in your eye only convinces me more.

The process of being recycled by atoms gives the photons their wavelengths, which our eye interprets as a color.

~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you Justatruthseeker,

I don't believe in photons as particles. I don't believe a particle hits that rock is absorbed and then emitted and conveys details such as color, texture, etc to your eyes.

I can't see what else they could be.
The fact that they can be absorbed and remitted by a rock's atoms and then hit the receptors in your eye only convinces me more.

The process of being recycled by atoms gives the photons their wavelengths, which our eye interprets as a color.

~Paul

That's just it, wavelengths, as in electromagnetic waves, not particles. Even E called them quantum "wave" packets. Your eyes convert the EM waves into electrical pulses in your brain to "see". Just as a radio converts electromagnetic waves and converts it to sound. I certainly don't believe my radio is converting particles into vibrations. Nor do I believe my phone is picking up and sending particles as I type this.

[comingfrom]

Thanks Justatruthseeker.

That's just it, wavelengths, as in electromagnetic waves, not particles. Even E called them quantum "wave" packets. Your eyes convert the EM waves into electrical pulses in your brain to "see". Just as a radio converts electromagnetic waves and converts it to sound. I certainly don't believe my radio is converting particles into vibrations. Nor do I believe my phone is picking up and sending particles as I type this.

Begs the question, waves of what? Waves of electromagnetics?
What is electromagnetics? Is it a medium?
And how come photons sometimes behave as if they are particles?

A packet is a particle.
Spins give particles wave motions.
So particles can also behave like waves, but I haven't been shown yet, how waves can behave like particles.
Or how a wave can come in a packet.
~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks Justatruthseeker.

That's just it, wavelengths, as in electromagnetic waves, not particles. Even E called them quantum "wave" packets. Your eyes convert the EM waves into electrical pulses in your brain to "see". Just as a radio converts electromagnetic waves and converts it to sound. I certainly don't believe my radio is converting particles into vibrations. Nor do I believe my phone is picking up and sending particles as I type this.

Begs the question, waves of what? Waves of electromagnetics?
What is electromagnetics? Is it a medium?
And how come photons sometimes behave as if they are particles?

A packet is a particle.
Spins give particles wave motions.
So particles can also behave like waves, but I haven't been shown yet, how waves can behave like particles.
Or how a wave can come in a packet.
~Paul

Or what you believe to be a photon is just electrons accelerated in the beam of light due to the momentum imparted by the light.

How can electromagnetics be a medium when it requires a medium? Yes, I know they claim no medium is needed, but then I have never seen a formulation of electromagnetic waves that didn't require such a medium. Maxwell's equations demand that a medium be considered. Since we have no other formulas......any other thought is speculative at best. All E did was take away the aether, called it spacetime, then applied the same motions to it they wouldn't accept with an aether. All he did was remove the notion that it consisted of particles that could be tracked through time. So photons can not be this medium as they can be tracked through time.

But you didn't answer the question. Do you believe your radio antenna is picking up particles or electromagnetic waves?

As for what electromagnetic waves are that's anybody's guess since we still don't have a clue what either electric or magnetic fields are composed of. Two of the three biggest scientific mysteries of our time.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Justatruthseeker.

Or what you believe to be a photon is just electrons accelerated in the beam of light due to the momentum imparted by the light.

Photons are light, and light is photons.
And yes, photons provide the emf which accelerate electrons.

How can electromagnetics be a medium when it requires a medium?

Particles don't require a medium.
They just fly through space.

But you didn't answer the question. Do you believe your radio antenna is picking up particles or electromagnetic waves?

Particles.
But the antenna is reading the particles' wave motions.

As for what electromagnetic waves are that's anybody's guess since we still don't have a clue what either electric or magnetic fields are composed of.

Charge.
It hasn't been defined yet, but we do have a name for it.

And the electromagnetic spectrum is light. That has been defined.
We know that light has a wavelength.
But how can a massless point particle have a wavelength? It can't.
The photon has been mis-defined.
~Paul

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank you, Justatruthseeker.

Particles don't require a medium.
They just fly through space.

Which totally avoided the fact that Maxwells equations require a medium for the propagation of light. As well as E himself knew enough to know a medium was required. He just couldn't formulate his theory without ascribing to it the very notions of movement he was trying to avoid. So he called it spacetime, made it composed of nothing, and proceeded to bend and accelerate this non-existent fabric even when he knew motion could not be ascribed to it. But without said motion he had no theory.

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html

Particles.
But the antenna is reading the particles' wave motions.

Let's look at slit test results.

Water which is made up of particles produces an interference patter different than light.

Now electron beams produce this same patter which led to the belief light was particles.

But, we now think electrons are waves.

So water, which we know is composed of particles, produces one pattern. Light which is waves, not particles produces another, consistent with electrons being waves. Now if particles produced the pattern that light does, then water which is composed of particles would produce this same pattern.

So they have mistakenly labeled as a particle pattern what is clearly a wave pattern and what is a wave patter which is clearly a particle pattern, since water is indeed composed of particles.

Charge.
It hasn't been defined yet, but we do have a name for it.

And the electromagnetic spectrum is light. That has been defined.
We know that light has a wavelength.
But how can a massless point particle have a wavelength? It can't.
The photon has been mis-defined.
~Paul

Mis-defined as a particle, agreed.

Charge is not a particle, it is a property particles possess and is the aether itself. Call it a voltage field if you like. Take a good look at oil drop experiments.