Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:57 pm

Michael Mozina wrote: ... "All hail the dead inflation deity, the creator of the almighty big bang". :)


You dare to doubt the holy theories?

Quick a prayer:

"In the invisible we trust.
we shall close our eyes for the evidence
because no null result may ever exist.

May the black holes in our theories
never see the light and be hidden
with extended maths that is never to be understood.

Fear for the one that sees the maths for real
or who sees how the observations do not match.
He may bring doubt in our minds.

May the theories inflate to infinity and beyond.
So no-one will never be able to verify
the hidden flaws in our theories.

Bring about a tsunami of papers about invisible darkness.
About the unreachable future and past.
With statistics or artwork.
So many papers, that only believers can ever
become a specialist like us.

And let us now justify our beliefs,
by confirming each other with citations and peer-reviews.

And remember to block and attack other views.
So the lightning will never be seen."
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:22 pm

In case Bob is still around, here’s another quasar oddity.

3C 186.

It was discovered in 2010.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... 0-145.html

At the time it was the most distant such object observed.

It was in a galaxy filled with relatively “cool” 30-80 “million” degree “gas”.

Yes, “gas”, not plasma … or so NASA kept telling the public. :roll:

Furthermore, the galaxy was described as “surprisingly well formed”.

But now it turns out to be even more remarkable.

Now NASA says the quasar is offset from the core of the galaxy.

http://s2.dmcdn.net/iLyW5/1280x720-z8G.jpg

They are claiming (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... actic-core ) that the quasar was booted out of the galaxy by “awesome” gravitational waves created by the dreaded black hole merger. Yes, they calculated that it took the energy of “100 MILLION supernovas exploding simultaneously” to make the quasar go “rogue” and that could only have come from the merger of TWO massive black holes at the center of this “surprisingly well formed” galaxy.

But surely such an event of such magnitude would disrupt a “well formed” galaxy? Even the above article has the researcher admitting that “I was anticipating seeing a lot of merging galaxies, and I was expecting to see messy host galaxies around the quasars, but I wasn't really expecting to see a quasar that was clearly offset from the core of a regularly shaped galaxy.” So not only did he find an unusual quasar that’s not in the center of the galaxy where it belongs, but the galaxy isn’t even particularly “messy”. They do however claim to see “faint” arc shaped features called “tidal tails” that “possibly” could be the result of two galaxies colliding. Possibly.

In any case, here’s what particularly interested me in this object. The NASA article says “an alternative explanation for the offset quasar, although unlikely, proposes that the bright object does not reside within the galaxy. Instead, the quasar is located behind the galaxy, but the Hubble image gives the illusion that it is at the same distance as the galaxy. If this were the case, the researchers should have detected a galaxy in the background hosting the quasar.” Now here’s my question … by the same logic, why didn’t they detect a galaxy in the background of NGC 7319, “hosting”, as they say, the quasar that appears to be in front of that galaxy? Hmmmmm, Bob?
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:04 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: ... "All hail the dead inflation deity, the creator of the almighty big bang". :)


You dare to doubt the holy theories?

Quick a prayer:

"In the invisible we trust.
we shall close our eyes for the evidence
because no null result may ever exist.

May the black holes in our theories
never see the light and be hidden
with extended maths that is never to be understood.

Fear for the one that sees the maths for real
or who sees how the observations do not match.
He may bring doubt in our minds.

May the theories inflate to infinity and beyond.
So no-one will never be able to verify
the hidden flaws in our theories.

Bring about a tsunami of papers about invisible darkness.
About the unreachable future and past.
With statistics or artwork.
So many papers, that only believers can ever
become a specialist like us.

And let us now justify our beliefs,
by confirming each other with citations and peer-reviews.

And remember to block and attack other views.
So the lightning will never be seen."


This theory I believe...
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:50 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote: ... "All hail the dead inflation deity, the creator of the almighty big bang". :)


You dare to doubt the holy theories?

Quick a prayer:

"In the invisible we trust.
we shall close our eyes for the evidence
because no null result may ever exist.

May the black holes in our theories
never see the light and be hidden
with extended maths that is never to be understood.

Fear for the one that sees the maths for real
or who sees how the observations do not match.
He may bring doubt in our minds.

May the theories inflate to infinity and beyond.
So no-one will never be able to verify
the hidden flaws in our theories.

Bring about a tsunami of papers about invisible darkness.
About the unreachable future and past.
With statistics or artwork.
So many papers, that only believers can ever
become a specialist like us.

And let us now justify our beliefs,
by confirming each other with citations and peer-reviews.

And remember to block and attack other views.
So the lightning will never be seen."


LOL!

Bob kinda lost it yesterday, so maybe we better be nice. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:56 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Bob kinda lost it yesterday, so maybe we better be nice. :)


I missed the fireworks. Oh well.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:31 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Bob kinda lost it yesterday, so maybe we better be nice. :)


I missed the fireworks. Oh well.


The Big Bang never happened. ;)
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:39 am

BeAChooser wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Bob kinda lost it yesterday, so maybe we better be nice. :)


I missed the fireworks. Oh well.


It was a thing of beauty I tell ya. :) Lot's of denial, lots of projection, and ad homs galore. :)

It made me wonder if maybe he's an "eternal inflation" kinda guy, and I should have used the term 'eternal' rather than 'dead' in the sentence that seemed to set him off. :)

Anyway, I like Bob and I hope that he comes back and focuses on the "topics". It's useful to have vocal skeptics in our midst if only to keep us honest and to help us learn and to grow. Come back Bob, and we'll be nice if you're nice. We appreciate you. We were just having a little fun. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:42 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Anyway, I like Bob and I hope that he comes back and focuses on the "topics". It's useful to have vocal skeptics in our midst if only to keep us honest and to help us learn and to grow. Come back Bob, and we'll be nice if you're nice. We appreciate you. We were just having a little fun. :)


Dittos.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:15 am

Yeah, please return Bob ... and Higgsy.

I’m hoping you can answer another question.

Has the mainstream found the missing light?

Or explained why they haven’t?

Remember back in 2014 when this was big news …

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-cosmic-ac ... risis.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/201 ... 00x600.jpg
Computer simulations of intergalactic hydrogen in a "dimly lit" universe (left) and a "brightly lit" universe (right) that has five times more of the energetic photons that destroy neutral hydrogen atoms. Hubble Space Telescope observations of hydrogen absorption match the picture on the right, but using only the known astronomical sources of ultraviolet light produces the much thicker structures on the left, and a severe mismatch with the observations.
Credit: Ben Oppenheimer and Juna Kollmeier


Something is amiss in the Universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget.

The vast reaches of empty space between galaxies are bridged by tendrils of hydrogen and helium, which can be used as a precise "light meter." In a recent study published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists finds that the light from known populations of galaxies and quasars is not nearly enough to explain observations of intergalactic hydrogen. The difference is a stunning 400 percent.
"It's as if you're in a big, brightly-lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt lightbulbs," noted Carnegie's Juna Kollmeier, lead author of the study. "Where is all that light coming from? It's missing from our census."

Strangely, this mismatch only appears in the nearby, relatively well-studied cosmos. When telescopes focus on galaxies billions of light years away (and therefore are viewing the universe billions of years in its past), everything seems to add up. The fact that this accounting works in the early universe but falls apart locally has scientists puzzled.

The light in question consists of highly energetic ultraviolet photons that are able to convert electrically neutral hydrogen atoms into electrically charged ions. The two known sources for such ionizing photons are quasars—powered by hot gas falling onto supermassive black holes over a million times the mass of the sun—and the hottest young stars.

Observations indicate that the ionizing photons from young stars are almost always absorbed by gas in their host galaxy, so they never escape to affect intergalactic hydrogen. But the number of known quasars is far lower than needed to produce the required light.

"Either our accounting of the light from galaxies and quasars is very far off, or there's some other major source of ionizing photons that we've never recognized," Kollmeier said. "We are calling this missing light the photon underproduction crisis. But it's the astronomers who are in crisis—somehow or other, the universe is getting along just fine."

The mismatch emerged from comparing supercomputer simulations of intergalactic gas to the most recent analysis of observations from Hubble Space Telescope's Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. "The simulations fit the data beautifully in the early universe, and they fit the local data beautifully if we're allowed to assume that this extra light is really there," explained Ben Oppenheimer a co-author from the University of Colorado. "It's possible the simulations do not reflect reality, which by itself would be a surprise, because intergalactic hydrogen is the component of the Universe that we think we understand the best."

"The most exciting possibility is that the missing photons are coming from some exotic new source, not galaxies or quasars at all," said Neal Katz a co-author from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

For example, the mysterious dark matter, which holds galaxies together but has never been seen directly, could itself decay and ultimately be responsible for this extra light.
"You know it's a crisis when you start seriously talking about decaying dark matter!" Katz remarked.

"The great thing about a 400% discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong," commented co-author David Weinberg of The Ohio State University. "We still don't know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn't true."

Whether the explanation is exotic or not, astronomers will be working hard to shed light on the mystery.


Well, have they?

Been working hard I mean?

Because I can’t seem to find anything on the web that indicates they’ve solved this mystery.

Or are even working on it.

But PC/EU theorists might have an explanation …

https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/07 ... the-light/

:D
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:48 am

this is why I don't read that shit anymore. Missing light now...lol This is what happens when you hire people for reasons other than capability.

2 years grant, 10 minutes work.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:28 pm

nick c wrote:Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable here.

Oh, so then you'll also be removing the posts that claim that I'm worshipping inflationary theory? What about the comment just above this one with the foul language in it? Isn't that something that you explicitly cited when you removed my comment in the other thread? Of course you won't also remove their comments. It's cute that you guys pretend to be unbiased though.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:11 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
nick c wrote:Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable here.

Oh, so then you'll also be removing the posts that claim that I'm worshipping inflationary theory?


I didn't see whatever you posted that was consider an ad hominem, Bob, but posts suggesting that you're worshipping inflationary theory don't seem to be an ad hominems to me. I think they describe what you're doing. I posted a list of characteristics shared by cults and mainstream cosmology proponents. So unless you challenge the accuracy of that post, I can only conclude mainstream cosmology proponents belong to a cult that worships gnomes.

Bob_Ham wrote: What about the comment just above this one with the foul language in it? Isn't that something that you explicitly cited when you removed my comment in the other thread? Of course you won't also remove their comments. It's cute that you guys pretend to be unbiased though.


I have a question, Bob. Did you report the foul language in that post? That’s what the little exclamation point button is for. Or did you not even give nick a chance to be even handed? Also, I don’t know what foul language you used but there are degrees of foulness. The expression he used, while crude, is not sexual. Was yours? It wasn’t directed at anyone. Was yours? That might make a difference. But in any case, I would suggest that instead of continuing to complain about the unfairness of it all, you start answering the questions we’ve asked you (i.e., engage in DEBATE) rather than acting like you don’t need to address our questions because we're not *degreed* physicists. Just saying …
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:48 pm

I should have noticed this on Bob_Ham’s profile page …

http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0126

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0126v5.pdf

A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF “ELECTRIC UNIVERSE” CLAIMS REGARDING PLANETARY ORBITS

Bob Ham

Draft version July 13, 2017

ABSTRACT

In this paper I examine the claim that the orbits of planets can be explained by nothing more than the electricity and magnetism. … snip …


What a shame that the premise in the first sentence of his paper is false. As far as I know, the modern PC/EU community as a rule is not claiming that “the orbits of planets can be explained by nothing more than the electricity and magnetism." Oh sure, there might be a few individuals here and there who do, but you won’t find anyone of Alfven, Peratt’s, Scott’s or Wallace’s stature claiming that. Such nonsense can only come from someone who thinks Velikovsky’s ideas are still representative of modern PC/EU thinking ... which is silly. And what a shame that Bob didn’t mention angular momentum and the problem that mainstream *degreed* physicists have with it’s distribution in the solar system. And what PC/EU theorists says about THAT. Because the explanation for the angular momentum distribution might be a clue as to how planets came to be in the orbits they now have. Just saying ...
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby kiwi » Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:50 pm

BeAchooser ...

“the orbits of planets can be explained by nothing more than the electricity and magnetism."


Not required either, its not your statement of course but ... it will suffice for this ad below :arrow:

In the Keplerian determination of orbital motion,
no information is required concerning mass, velocity, or
any other details of the orbiting object itself. Moreover, as
Gauss demonstrated, and as we shall rediscover for ourselves,
the orbit and the orbital motion in its totality, can
be adduced from nothing more than the internal “curvature”
of any portion of the orbit, however small.
Think this over carefully. Here, the science of Kepler,
Gauss, and Riemann distinguishes itself absolutely from
that of Galileo, Newton, Laplace, et al. Orbits and
changes of orbit (which in turn are subsumed by higherorder
orbits) are ontologically primary. The relation of the
Keplerian orbit, as a relatively “timeless” existence, to the
array of successive positions of the orbiting body, is like
that of an hypothesis to its array of theorems. From this
standpoint, we can say it is the orbit which “moves” the
planet, not the planet which creates the orbit by its
motion!


Gauss was a true genius imo, he also delighted in taking a poke at the mainstream big-wigs of the day, which is always amusing :)

Full doc here https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_9 ... _ceres.pdf
kiwi
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Are there any EU followers here with physics degrees?

Unread postby BeAChooser » Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:37 pm

kiwi wrote:BeAchooser ...

“the orbits of planets can be explained by nothing more than the electricity and magnetism."


Not required either


Didn't say or suggest it was. I've no problem with planet motions now being governed by gravity. But how did they come to have the angular momentum around the sun that they do? And didn't they likely acquire that momentum back when the solar system was mostly plasma? THAT is what Bob_Ham overlooks.
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests